My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal
Dost Mittar May 3, 2004
#76 Posted by harimau on May 5, 2004 8:32:43 am
Ref dost-mittar #62
[sadna:
Yes, that Sheshan might have had a big ego and a total failure as a politician but he does deserve a lot of credit for cleaning up the electoral mess.]
Actually, any messy situation was created in the 1970s. Before that the election process, though not overly encumbered by rules, was very fair. After all, the Congress went down to defeat in Kerala starting in 1957 and nobody questioned the poll process or the results.
It is the introduction of thugs, by all parties, that provided the motivation for adding to the rules and regulations regarding the electoral process.
For instance, the Election Commission in India has banned the use of Air Force planes by anyone except the Prime Minister after new elections are announced. The exception for the Prime Minister is for security reasons.
In March, Advani (remember he is the Deputy Prime Minister of India) came on a visit to some small town outside Bangalore on an Air Force helicopter. As he was making his speech, the announcement came from New Delhi that new elections had been ordered.
When Advani finished his speech, the Air Force pilot informed him that he was no longer eligible to fly on a government helicopter, smartly saluted him and took off -- without Advani. Advani got into a car and drove for over 90 minutes to Bangalore.
Yep, you can say that the Election Commission has armed itself with a whole lot more powers because of the shenanigans of thugs. And it is completely backed by the Supreme Court.
[sadna:
Yes, that Sheshan might have had a big ego and a total failure as a politician but he does deserve a lot of credit for cleaning up the electoral mess.]
Actually, any messy situation was created in the 1970s. Before that the election process, though not overly encumbered by rules, was very fair. After all, the Congress went down to defeat in Kerala starting in 1957 and nobody questioned the poll process or the results.
It is the introduction of thugs, by all parties, that provided the motivation for adding to the rules and regulations regarding the electoral process.
For instance, the Election Commission in India has banned the use of Air Force planes by anyone except the Prime Minister after new elections are announced. The exception for the Prime Minister is for security reasons.
In March, Advani (remember he is the Deputy Prime Minister of India) came on a visit to some small town outside Bangalore on an Air Force helicopter. As he was making his speech, the announcement came from New Delhi that new elections had been ordered.
When Advani finished his speech, the Air Force pilot informed him that he was no longer eligible to fly on a government helicopter, smartly saluted him and took off -- without Advani. Advani got into a car and drove for over 90 minutes to Bangalore.
Yep, you can say that the Election Commission has armed itself with a whole lot more powers because of the shenanigans of thugs. And it is completely backed by the Supreme Court.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#75 Posted by tahmed32 on May 5, 2004 8:32:43 am
urstruly: The Quran implies free enterprise (e.g. when it calls for giving correct measure among other things), and to that extent I will agree with you and certainly the marxist model of expropriation is contrary to this. But you are wrong in equating feudalism with free enterprise. Indeed, feudalism is associated with human bondage rather than free enterprise. And as a result, feudalism is as much contrary to the spirit of islam as is the marxist model.
Knowing your anti-military views, I thought I would make your day by providing this cut and paste from today`s washington post. If this mullah-military linkage stresses your mind, given that mullahism is ok with you but not the military - then perhaps it is an indication that your thinking is not quite rational:
Pakistan`s Real Bulwark
By Alfred Stepan and Aqil Shah
Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page A29
Amid the turmoil in Iraq and signs that Afghanistan still lacks a viable state, it`s not surprising that doubts about the ability of the United States to support democratization are growing in the Middle East and even in the United States. This is all the more reason why the success of a homegrown democratic process anywhere in the Muslim world is so important -- especially in a strategically located nuclear state such as Pakistan. But is U.S. policy helping to achieve this end in Pakistan?
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Pakistan`s President Pervez Musharraf ``the right man at the right time.`` President Bush wants Congress to reward the Musharraf government with a five-year, $3 billion assistance package, even as his administration turns a blind eye to the Pakistani military`s possible involvement in proliferation of nuclear materials to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Indeed, the Bush administration recently proposed that Pakistan be designated ``a major non-NATO ally.``
Much of Musharraf`s status as the ``right man`` stems from Pakistan`s help against al Qaeda and, crucially, the belief that Pakistan`s military is the best bulwark against the growth of Islamic extremism in a nuclear state. As proof of the threat in Pakistan, it is noted that two of the country`s four provinces are already much under the sway of Islamic extremists in the Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA) or United Action Forum, an alliance of six Islamist parties.
But before Congress authorizes the ``bulwark fee`` to Musharraf, it should consider the following: In the 1993 elections, fundamentalist parties won only nine of the 217 national assembly seats. In the 1997 elections, they were reduced to two. But in October 2002, three years after Musharraf`s 1999 coup, the MMA Islamist alliance secured 45 of the 272 national seats, and in the strategically crucial North-West Frontier Province, it won 48 of the 99 contested provincial assembly seats.
More directly damning for the bulwark thesis, there is strong evidence that Musharraf and the Pakistani military contributed to this result. Two major moderate parties, Benazir Bhutto`s center-left Pakistan People`s Party and Nawaz Sharif`s center-right Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, won about 70 percent of the vote (and seats) in the general elections of 1993 and 1997. Musharraf and the military correctly viewed these two parties -- and especially their leaders -- as the most powerful challengers to his claim to rule in the ``supreme national interest,`` and they have kept the two former premiers virtually in exile. On April 12 Javed Hashmi, acting president of the Muslim League, was sentenced to 23 years in prison for defamation of the military. The military regularly used force to curtail the freedom of the two moderate parties in the 2002 elections. Meanwhile, it gave the Islamists free rein to hold rallies.
Among many other ways the military aided the fundamentalist parties was by decreeing that only candidates with a bachelor`s degree could run for national or provincial election. This disqualified about half the previous incumbents of moderate parties from competing. At the same time, graduation from madrassas, the Islamic religious schools, was allowed to count as a bachelor`s degree, so virtually no MMA candidates were blocked.
Despite all this military help for the Islamists, the surprising but under-recognized fact is that the MMA won only 11.1 percent of the total vote in Pakistan`s last national elections. Our evidence suggests that far from being a ``bulwark,`` the military is actually a facilitator of Islamic extremism. Worse, after helping to marginalize the traditional moderate parties, the military is in danger of becoming beholden to the extremist parties, which in fact cast the deciding vote to constitutionalize many of Musharraf`s self-granted powers.
Congress is considering the administration`s $700 million annual budgetary request for Pakistan. It might also decide to discuss legislation, introduced by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), stipulating that the president must certify that a country is a democracy and is participating with the United States in advancing global nonproliferation efforts before declaring it a ``major non-NATO ally.``
There is much else to consider. The president`s Pakistan aid package calls for $300 million a year in military aid but only about $20 million for primary and secondary education. One of the reasons so many poor Pakistanis send their children to madrassa hate factories is that the amount Pakistan spends on public education is among the lowest in the world as a percentage of its economic output.
Democracy in Pakistan has not been weak because of Islamic extremists. In the six national elections held since 1970 for which party-based vote shares can be determined, extremists have not managed to garner more than 12 percent of the vote. Elected politicians have not covered themselves in glory. But one of the major reasons that democracy has been weak in Pakistan is that, in its 56 years of independence, not one elected government has been allowed to finish a full term.
The ``right person`` for the United States and Pakistan is a prime minister put in office by free elections and allowed by the military to finish his or her full term of office.
Alfred Stepan is the Wallace Sayre professor of government at Columbia University. Aqil Shah, a former Rhodes Scholar from Pakistan, is a visiting research fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy. He will answer questions about this article Thursday at 1 p.m. on www.washingtonpost.com.
Knowing your anti-military views, I thought I would make your day by providing this cut and paste from today`s washington post. If this mullah-military linkage stresses your mind, given that mullahism is ok with you but not the military - then perhaps it is an indication that your thinking is not quite rational:
Pakistan`s Real Bulwark
By Alfred Stepan and Aqil Shah
Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page A29
Amid the turmoil in Iraq and signs that Afghanistan still lacks a viable state, it`s not surprising that doubts about the ability of the United States to support democratization are growing in the Middle East and even in the United States. This is all the more reason why the success of a homegrown democratic process anywhere in the Muslim world is so important -- especially in a strategically located nuclear state such as Pakistan. But is U.S. policy helping to achieve this end in Pakistan?
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Pakistan`s President Pervez Musharraf ``the right man at the right time.`` President Bush wants Congress to reward the Musharraf government with a five-year, $3 billion assistance package, even as his administration turns a blind eye to the Pakistani military`s possible involvement in proliferation of nuclear materials to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Indeed, the Bush administration recently proposed that Pakistan be designated ``a major non-NATO ally.``
Much of Musharraf`s status as the ``right man`` stems from Pakistan`s help against al Qaeda and, crucially, the belief that Pakistan`s military is the best bulwark against the growth of Islamic extremism in a nuclear state. As proof of the threat in Pakistan, it is noted that two of the country`s four provinces are already much under the sway of Islamic extremists in the Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA) or United Action Forum, an alliance of six Islamist parties.
But before Congress authorizes the ``bulwark fee`` to Musharraf, it should consider the following: In the 1993 elections, fundamentalist parties won only nine of the 217 national assembly seats. In the 1997 elections, they were reduced to two. But in October 2002, three years after Musharraf`s 1999 coup, the MMA Islamist alliance secured 45 of the 272 national seats, and in the strategically crucial North-West Frontier Province, it won 48 of the 99 contested provincial assembly seats.
More directly damning for the bulwark thesis, there is strong evidence that Musharraf and the Pakistani military contributed to this result. Two major moderate parties, Benazir Bhutto`s center-left Pakistan People`s Party and Nawaz Sharif`s center-right Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, won about 70 percent of the vote (and seats) in the general elections of 1993 and 1997. Musharraf and the military correctly viewed these two parties -- and especially their leaders -- as the most powerful challengers to his claim to rule in the ``supreme national interest,`` and they have kept the two former premiers virtually in exile. On April 12 Javed Hashmi, acting president of the Muslim League, was sentenced to 23 years in prison for defamation of the military. The military regularly used force to curtail the freedom of the two moderate parties in the 2002 elections. Meanwhile, it gave the Islamists free rein to hold rallies.
Among many other ways the military aided the fundamentalist parties was by decreeing that only candidates with a bachelor`s degree could run for national or provincial election. This disqualified about half the previous incumbents of moderate parties from competing. At the same time, graduation from madrassas, the Islamic religious schools, was allowed to count as a bachelor`s degree, so virtually no MMA candidates were blocked.
Despite all this military help for the Islamists, the surprising but under-recognized fact is that the MMA won only 11.1 percent of the total vote in Pakistan`s last national elections. Our evidence suggests that far from being a ``bulwark,`` the military is actually a facilitator of Islamic extremism. Worse, after helping to marginalize the traditional moderate parties, the military is in danger of becoming beholden to the extremist parties, which in fact cast the deciding vote to constitutionalize many of Musharraf`s self-granted powers.
Congress is considering the administration`s $700 million annual budgetary request for Pakistan. It might also decide to discuss legislation, introduced by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), stipulating that the president must certify that a country is a democracy and is participating with the United States in advancing global nonproliferation efforts before declaring it a ``major non-NATO ally.``
There is much else to consider. The president`s Pakistan aid package calls for $300 million a year in military aid but only about $20 million for primary and secondary education. One of the reasons so many poor Pakistanis send their children to madrassa hate factories is that the amount Pakistan spends on public education is among the lowest in the world as a percentage of its economic output.
Democracy in Pakistan has not been weak because of Islamic extremists. In the six national elections held since 1970 for which party-based vote shares can be determined, extremists have not managed to garner more than 12 percent of the vote. Elected politicians have not covered themselves in glory. But one of the major reasons that democracy has been weak in Pakistan is that, in its 56 years of independence, not one elected government has been allowed to finish a full term.
The ``right person`` for the United States and Pakistan is a prime minister put in office by free elections and allowed by the military to finish his or her full term of office.
Alfred Stepan is the Wallace Sayre professor of government at Columbia University. Aqil Shah, a former Rhodes Scholar from Pakistan, is a visiting research fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy. He will answer questions about this article Thursday at 1 p.m. on www.washingtonpost.com.
#74 Posted by rozaiba on May 5, 2004 8:32:42 am
HP:
``Suhrawardi became Pakistan’s prime minister in 1956 for a short period of time.
Pakistan’s first constitution was passed in 1956 under his prime ministership.``
I think the first constitution was passed under the Prime Minister Chaudhary Muhammad Ali. Suhrawardi became PM a few months afterwards.
Romair:
Good informative post about how the fauji-elite have infiltrated the system to become a part of and defenders of the status quo.
``Suhrawardi became Pakistan’s prime minister in 1956 for a short period of time.
Pakistan’s first constitution was passed in 1956 under his prime ministership.``
I think the first constitution was passed under the Prime Minister Chaudhary Muhammad Ali. Suhrawardi became PM a few months afterwards.
Romair:
Good informative post about how the fauji-elite have infiltrated the system to become a part of and defenders of the status quo.
#73 Posted by Urstruly on May 5, 2004 5:08:09 am
Dost Mitter
Mullahs will not take on Feudals; not because they form a nexus with them but because of the fundamental philosophy they subscribe to. Islam as a political and economic system encourages free enterprise. This is in absolute contrast with the marxist style ``land reforms`` that most of the people think of here. Islam has a built in mechanism to keep one enterprise or proporitership, be it feudal holding, from growing too big. It is the inheritance laws.
Islam in contrast with marxism does not promote the idea of equal distribution of wealth but an idea of JUST distribution of wealth. For that, in agriculture, it has introduced a system of taxation called ``Ushr`` which is equivalent of the ``Zakat``. Technically, Ushr, is not taxation, rather it is mandatory charity. The ``revenue`` from Ushr does not go back into the system but it goes into the welfare like Zakat. The government may use this revenue to human development and training in the areas from where it was received, provide healthcare to those who can`t afford it, and also start something like workers compensation and joblessness allowance etc. But this amount cannot be spent on the infrastructure - it is more of people oriented spending.
In addition to Ushr, Islam recommends and permits taxation on agriculture income. The revenue from this taxation may be used for anything from defence to road building etc.
The bottomline is that the Islamic system of economics does not put a cap on possession of wealth, be it in the form of agriculture land or industrial concerns or business. It introduces instead a dual tax system.
When Moghuls, in Hindustan, implemented the agriculture revenue system for the first time in the history, it was based on these principles. As history will attest that distribution of the income from agriculture between lanlord and the peasant has never been an issue throughout Hindustan (with some possible exceptions in lawless areas). The British and sikhs (I dont know about Soth) continued the system because it ensured that there wont be any uprising in peasants. However, British did abolish the social welfare system that was based on the income through Zakat and Ushr - renamed the taxes and diverted the wealth towards England. In addition they imposed some horrific form of taxation upon agriculture income which effected both peasants and lanlords - but mostly the proportion of distribution of wealth between peasant and lanlord from whatever was left out remained unchanged.
This is the reason, I support Mullah`s vision of an ``agriculture reform`` rather than the marxist one.
#72 Posted by HP on May 4, 2004 9:35:37 pm
#66 by nakhok
Just adding a little bit more about Suharwardi.
Suhrawardi became Pakistan’s prime minister in 1956 for a short period of time.
Pakistan’s first constitution was passed in 1956 under his prime ministership. He was blamed by Bengalis for accepting the Parity formula and One unit for Pakistan.
Parity meant East and west Pakistan were equal in representation. The reality was that East Pakistan was a Majority population province.
One unit was created to put rest of the Pakistani provinces-Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, and Baluchistan- together to make a one big province of West Pakistan to match East Pakistan. It was a horrendous mistake as it caused anti Punjabi movements to start in other provinces. The one unit went down with Gen. Ayub Khan. East Pakistan soon disappeared too.
He was still Pakistan’s Prime Minister when 1956 Suez war broke out.
He said about Arabs ``Zero plus zero plus zero equal to zero.`` He was pretty quickly removed from the Prime ministership.
He died in exile in Beirut.
#71 Posted by HP on May 4, 2004 9:35:37 pm
#68 by veeresh
Btw, The Super Highway between Karachi and Hyderabad was fully functional in 1972. It is still the best highway in Pakistan and is being extended or has already extended beyond Hyderabad. The highway Patrolling that you saw at M2 was in effect at Super Highway a long time ago.
A long time ago I traveled by road from Karachi to Gilgat/Hunza via the Kora karm Highway. Even at that time all the highways were far ahead of what India had at that time. I visited India soon after. This is not meant for any thing else other than info.
Btw, The Super Highway between Karachi and Hyderabad was fully functional in 1972. It is still the best highway in Pakistan and is being extended or has already extended beyond Hyderabad. The highway Patrolling that you saw at M2 was in effect at Super Highway a long time ago.
A long time ago I traveled by road from Karachi to Gilgat/Hunza via the Kora karm Highway. Even at that time all the highways were far ahead of what India had at that time. I visited India soon after. This is not meant for any thing else other than info.
#70 Posted by Romair on May 4, 2004 9:19:59 pm
Long Post:...(even by my standards...but perhaps informative)
zamir1 #56: ``You are correct that elite in Pakistan mostly rule the country and that they are all some how related to one other, either by blood, marriage or some times by friendship. However, do keep in mind that this elite group in Pakistan in not a club closed to the non members, but it is a very dynamic group where the membership as well as the affiliations change quickly.``
You cannot look at just the PM to decide the hold of various families. The PM is just the showpiece and interface. The real power lies in the core families, which prop up the PMs. Every now and then a few famlies are able to join this core. But, at its heart the core remains the same.
Pakistan is literally run by a few hundred families. These families are all related to each other, regardless of what political parties they belong to. They are in the bearecracy, political parties, big business etc. Uptil Musharraf generation, they were heavily integerated into the Army also. From my generation, they don`t join the Army any longer, due to low salariers. But they are everywhere else.
The only other group they are not married into are the maulvis. Primarily because the maulvis aren`t rich enough yet.......
I had posted a detailed reply on how they are related. I will try to reproduce it here:
Gen. Ayub Khan was the first CMLA of Pakistan. He was from humble origins. However, his kids and grandkids and in-law kids run all of NWFP and much of Pakistan now. One or two of these grandkids are active on this site also.
Considering the state that NWFP is in, we should know where to put the blame.
- Ayub Khan appointed Gen. (retd.) Habibullah Khattak as the Chairman of National Industrial Commission
-Ayub`s son, Gohar Ayub, married Khattak`s daughter. Gohar has been MNA mulitple times from PML. He has been minister and speaker of assembly, and is a key member of PML(Q)
- Ayubs` second son, Akhtar Ayub has been MNA
- Ayub`s third son, Shaukut Ayub owns flour mills
- Ayub`s daughter, Nasim Ayub, was married to Miangul Aurangzeb, who is the Wali of Swat. This guy has the unique distinction of being the governor of Baluchistan and Frontier
- Ayub`s other daughter, Jamila, was married to Aurangzeb`s brother
- Tahir Ayub`s daughter (Gohar`s neice) is married to Haji Ghulam Bilour, who is a member of ANP (currently in opposition to Gohar`s party PML(Q)) and has been an MNA, and is I believe the head of the NWFP Chamber of Commerce (recently in India, to promote trade)
- The daughter of Akhtar Nawaz (Gohar`s cousin) is married to Chaudhry Wajahat. Wajahat is the youngest brother of Chaudhry Shujaat, who is the head of PML(Q) and the de-facto Prime Minister
- Wajahat`s cousin Elahi, is the current Chief Minister of Punjab
The fun doesn`t stop here:
- Gohar Ayub`s daughter is married to Iqbal Saifullah, of the famous Saifullah brothers
- Gohar`s son is married to Anwar Saifullah`s daughter
- The eldest Saifullah brother, Humayun Saifullah, was a member of PPP
- His two brothers, Salim and Anwar Saifullah are members of PML. Salim was (and I think is, again) the president of the Frontier branch of PML
- Anwar was arrested by NAB in various cases. He was the Minister of petroleum under PPP. Yes he has been in both PML(N) and PPP. And the family is currently in PML(Q). Big time lotas
- Anwar Saifullah is married to the daughter of the former President of Pakistan, Ghulam Ishaq Khan
- Ghulam Ishaq`s other son-in-law, the notorious Irfanullah Marwat, is (was) a member of Punjabi-Pakhtoon Ittehad in Karachi and a provincial minister there
More fun:
- Gen. Habibullah (Gohar`s father-in-law) is the brother of Kulsoom Saifullah (mother of Saifullah brothers) and step brohter of Aslam Khattak. Aslam Khattak was the governor of NWFP. He was a member of Majlis-e-Shura under Zia, also
- One of the Khattak`s son`s is Lt. Gen (retd) Ali Quli Khattak. He went to Sandhurst. He was supposed to be the current Chief of Army Staff, had Nawaz not superseeded him and appointed Musharraf. (Ali Quli`s younger brother, Wg. Cdr Khattak was an F-16 pilot and one of my bosses in Sargoadha. Probably slightly junior colleague of NazarHayatKhan)
- Aslam Khattak`s son-in-law is Nawabzada Moshin, was a minister of finance in NWFP. He has now joined Imran Khan`s PTI, as head of its Frontier chapter
I wish these guys had stopped here. However, in the current election, Gohar could not participate, since he did not have a B.A. degree. But his wife became an MNA. Better yet, so did his young son, Omar Ayub Khan. He is around my age. And is the current Parliamentary Secretary of Finance.
So the Khattaks and Saifullahs were running NWFP and Pakistan (to some extent). Ayub Khan wisely married into these families. So he became part of the system. This combined family has extended into Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Bilour in NWFP, Chaudhry Shujaat in Punjab. Their brothers and sisters are in the very highest ranks of PPP, PML, ANP, PPI and the military.
Either all the talent of Pakistan is in these families. And the rest of us are nincumpoops. Or these families have the system figured out from all directions, and will never let anyone else come up. In the process, NWFP has become one of the most backward areas in the world. Those members of these famlies who are not in getting elected, are studying abroad, or writing for Friday Times, or Chowk.
Within the current feudal setup, what chance in hell does anyone have of getting rid of these families. Regardless of which party is in power, Army, PPP, PML, ANP, Zia etc., they remain in power, since they are all related to each other. How will people like Imran Khan come to the top? In fact, the only seat PTI can win, other than Imran`s, is Nawabzada Mohsin`s (Aslam Khattak`s son-in-law), NWFP seat, who has now joined PTI. This guy could join the BJP and still win his seat, in NWFP. As could all the rest of his family members.
P.S. Just in case, people start think maulvis are better. Maulana Fazl-ur-Rahman, the most powerful maulvi politician in Pakistan, has three sister-in-laws in provincial and national assemblies, on appointed seats, i.e. not elected, but appointed by him
- Qazi Hussain, the second head of MMA, has a daughter who is an MNA on an appointed women`s seat.
So the maulvis, though new to the game, are getting the hang of it also.
zamir1 #56: ``You are correct that elite in Pakistan mostly rule the country and that they are all some how related to one other, either by blood, marriage or some times by friendship. However, do keep in mind that this elite group in Pakistan in not a club closed to the non members, but it is a very dynamic group where the membership as well as the affiliations change quickly.``
You cannot look at just the PM to decide the hold of various families. The PM is just the showpiece and interface. The real power lies in the core families, which prop up the PMs. Every now and then a few famlies are able to join this core. But, at its heart the core remains the same.
Pakistan is literally run by a few hundred families. These families are all related to each other, regardless of what political parties they belong to. They are in the bearecracy, political parties, big business etc. Uptil Musharraf generation, they were heavily integerated into the Army also. From my generation, they don`t join the Army any longer, due to low salariers. But they are everywhere else.
The only other group they are not married into are the maulvis. Primarily because the maulvis aren`t rich enough yet.......
I had posted a detailed reply on how they are related. I will try to reproduce it here:
Gen. Ayub Khan was the first CMLA of Pakistan. He was from humble origins. However, his kids and grandkids and in-law kids run all of NWFP and much of Pakistan now. One or two of these grandkids are active on this site also.
Considering the state that NWFP is in, we should know where to put the blame.
- Ayub Khan appointed Gen. (retd.) Habibullah Khattak as the Chairman of National Industrial Commission
-Ayub`s son, Gohar Ayub, married Khattak`s daughter. Gohar has been MNA mulitple times from PML. He has been minister and speaker of assembly, and is a key member of PML(Q)
- Ayubs` second son, Akhtar Ayub has been MNA
- Ayub`s third son, Shaukut Ayub owns flour mills
- Ayub`s daughter, Nasim Ayub, was married to Miangul Aurangzeb, who is the Wali of Swat. This guy has the unique distinction of being the governor of Baluchistan and Frontier
- Ayub`s other daughter, Jamila, was married to Aurangzeb`s brother
- Tahir Ayub`s daughter (Gohar`s neice) is married to Haji Ghulam Bilour, who is a member of ANP (currently in opposition to Gohar`s party PML(Q)) and has been an MNA, and is I believe the head of the NWFP Chamber of Commerce (recently in India, to promote trade)
- The daughter of Akhtar Nawaz (Gohar`s cousin) is married to Chaudhry Wajahat. Wajahat is the youngest brother of Chaudhry Shujaat, who is the head of PML(Q) and the de-facto Prime Minister
- Wajahat`s cousin Elahi, is the current Chief Minister of Punjab
The fun doesn`t stop here:
- Gohar Ayub`s daughter is married to Iqbal Saifullah, of the famous Saifullah brothers
- Gohar`s son is married to Anwar Saifullah`s daughter
- The eldest Saifullah brother, Humayun Saifullah, was a member of PPP
- His two brothers, Salim and Anwar Saifullah are members of PML. Salim was (and I think is, again) the president of the Frontier branch of PML
- Anwar was arrested by NAB in various cases. He was the Minister of petroleum under PPP. Yes he has been in both PML(N) and PPP. And the family is currently in PML(Q). Big time lotas
- Anwar Saifullah is married to the daughter of the former President of Pakistan, Ghulam Ishaq Khan
- Ghulam Ishaq`s other son-in-law, the notorious Irfanullah Marwat, is (was) a member of Punjabi-Pakhtoon Ittehad in Karachi and a provincial minister there
More fun:
- Gen. Habibullah (Gohar`s father-in-law) is the brother of Kulsoom Saifullah (mother of Saifullah brothers) and step brohter of Aslam Khattak. Aslam Khattak was the governor of NWFP. He was a member of Majlis-e-Shura under Zia, also
- One of the Khattak`s son`s is Lt. Gen (retd) Ali Quli Khattak. He went to Sandhurst. He was supposed to be the current Chief of Army Staff, had Nawaz not superseeded him and appointed Musharraf. (Ali Quli`s younger brother, Wg. Cdr Khattak was an F-16 pilot and one of my bosses in Sargoadha. Probably slightly junior colleague of NazarHayatKhan)
- Aslam Khattak`s son-in-law is Nawabzada Moshin, was a minister of finance in NWFP. He has now joined Imran Khan`s PTI, as head of its Frontier chapter
I wish these guys had stopped here. However, in the current election, Gohar could not participate, since he did not have a B.A. degree. But his wife became an MNA. Better yet, so did his young son, Omar Ayub Khan. He is around my age. And is the current Parliamentary Secretary of Finance.
So the Khattaks and Saifullahs were running NWFP and Pakistan (to some extent). Ayub Khan wisely married into these families. So he became part of the system. This combined family has extended into Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Bilour in NWFP, Chaudhry Shujaat in Punjab. Their brothers and sisters are in the very highest ranks of PPP, PML, ANP, PPI and the military.
Either all the talent of Pakistan is in these families. And the rest of us are nincumpoops. Or these families have the system figured out from all directions, and will never let anyone else come up. In the process, NWFP has become one of the most backward areas in the world. Those members of these famlies who are not in getting elected, are studying abroad, or writing for Friday Times, or Chowk.
Within the current feudal setup, what chance in hell does anyone have of getting rid of these families. Regardless of which party is in power, Army, PPP, PML, ANP, Zia etc., they remain in power, since they are all related to each other. How will people like Imran Khan come to the top? In fact, the only seat PTI can win, other than Imran`s, is Nawabzada Mohsin`s (Aslam Khattak`s son-in-law), NWFP seat, who has now joined PTI. This guy could join the BJP and still win his seat, in NWFP. As could all the rest of his family members.
P.S. Just in case, people start think maulvis are better. Maulana Fazl-ur-Rahman, the most powerful maulvi politician in Pakistan, has three sister-in-laws in provincial and national assemblies, on appointed seats, i.e. not elected, but appointed by him
- Qazi Hussain, the second head of MMA, has a daughter who is an MNA on an appointed women`s seat.
So the maulvis, though new to the game, are getting the hang of it also.
#69 Posted by Pakfin on May 4, 2004 8:11:35 pm
#53 by Romair on May 4, 2004 12:34pm PT
HisExcellency #50: ``It can be safely assumed that there are no feudals in Punjab:``
This is true, probably, for most of Punjab. But not for Southern Punjab, where Punjab meets Baluchi and Sindhi lands. That part of Sind and Baluchistan is very feudal. And it cannot immediately stop when it reaches Punjab. In fact, some Baluchi tribes are actually in Punjab, geographically.
Dont forget that historically the Seraiki belt or lower Punjab was part of Sindh. The question here is not that a number of Balauchi tribes moved to Punjab, but the question here is that Punjab expanded its borders.
HisExcellency #50: ``It can be safely assumed that there are no feudals in Punjab:``
This is true, probably, for most of Punjab. But not for Southern Punjab, where Punjab meets Baluchi and Sindhi lands. That part of Sind and Baluchistan is very feudal. And it cannot immediately stop when it reaches Punjab. In fact, some Baluchi tribes are actually in Punjab, geographically.
Dont forget that historically the Seraiki belt or lower Punjab was part of Sindh. The question here is not that a number of Balauchi tribes moved to Punjab, but the question here is that Punjab expanded its borders.
#68 Posted by veeresh on May 4, 2004 8:10:10 pm
Various:-
a) The comparable motorway stretch in India is the Mumbai-Pune Expressway, 3 x 3, which is just about 130 kilometres aimed at 100kmph, but through really tough terrain in the Western Ghats. The rest of the GQ/NSEW project are basically 2 x 2 highways aimed at 80 kmph. The Motorway between Lahore & Islamabad is IMHO a quantum leap ahead of anything we have in India, so far . . . and not just build quality but also support infrastructure as well as interchanges.
b) The feudal system in Pakistan Punjab, what I saw, is different from the one in India because . . . in India, the rural peasant can escape to the city and try his luck there. In India the rural peasant can join up some form of revolution/movement. In India the rural peasant can also try to go to college and get an often worthless degree. I do not think the Pakistani peasant can do this. Sad, but true, and that is also probably one reason why abject poverty is not present on the streets of Lahore/Islamabad.
a) The comparable motorway stretch in India is the Mumbai-Pune Expressway, 3 x 3, which is just about 130 kilometres aimed at 100kmph, but through really tough terrain in the Western Ghats. The rest of the GQ/NSEW project are basically 2 x 2 highways aimed at 80 kmph. The Motorway between Lahore & Islamabad is IMHO a quantum leap ahead of anything we have in India, so far . . . and not just build quality but also support infrastructure as well as interchanges.
b) The feudal system in Pakistan Punjab, what I saw, is different from the one in India because . . . in India, the rural peasant can escape to the city and try his luck there. In India the rural peasant can join up some form of revolution/movement. In India the rural peasant can also try to go to college and get an often worthless degree. I do not think the Pakistani peasant can do this. Sad, but true, and that is also probably one reason why abject poverty is not present on the streets of Lahore/Islamabad.
#67 Posted by Pakfin on May 4, 2004 8:02:47 pm
As usual most people blame landlords for all evils found in Pakistani society. Remember that many large landlords fuedal or otherwise are benevolent to society. When a villager faces any kind of problem, he would turn to the local landlord. In order to seek justice in the village it is the local zamindar that a person would turn to. This is not necessarily of the landlords` creation, but is due to the failure of the local government.
In what industry does the industrialist provide 50% of the produce to the workers? There are many traders and businessmen who are much wealthier than most landlords, but we hardly hear any voices raised against them.
When a person talks of land reforms, the view is typically socialistic and basically talks about the government taking away landed property from large landowners. Of course people forget that most of the resumed agricultural land ended up with the military.
The Potohar region around Rawalpindi and Jhelum is barren and hence there is very little agriculture and consequently very few large landowners in te area. It is not because people are more enlightened, but because of economic reasons. This is also one of the reasons that almost all families in the Jhelum and Rawalpindi area have family members in the army.
At the end of the day the issue is that of the haves and the havenots.
In what industry does the industrialist provide 50% of the produce to the workers? There are many traders and businessmen who are much wealthier than most landlords, but we hardly hear any voices raised against them.
When a person talks of land reforms, the view is typically socialistic and basically talks about the government taking away landed property from large landowners. Of course people forget that most of the resumed agricultural land ended up with the military.
The Potohar region around Rawalpindi and Jhelum is barren and hence there is very little agriculture and consequently very few large landowners in te area. It is not because people are more enlightened, but because of economic reasons. This is also one of the reasons that almost all families in the Jhelum and Rawalpindi area have family members in the army.
At the end of the day the issue is that of the haves and the havenots.
#66 Posted by aslam644 on May 4, 2004 7:39:19 pm
#59 jang
There is half million strong Mirpuri community in Britain, our forefathers came in the fifties and early sixties, air travel was a luxury at that time it cost five thousand rupees. I believe it was enough to buy a small car with this amount- even today peasants living under the feudal tyranny in southern panjab and rural sindh, will not have this amount of cash!!
It is well documented in Britain, that if it hadn`t been for Mirpuries, sikhs from Jalandhar, and Bengalies from Sylhet britain wouldn`t have been able to rebuild so fast after the second world war- be it it`s textile mills, steel mills, and cars factories.
Mirpuries have played their part in making Britain the 4th biggest economy in the World
There is half million strong Mirpuri community in Britain, our forefathers came in the fifties and early sixties, air travel was a luxury at that time it cost five thousand rupees. I believe it was enough to buy a small car with this amount- even today peasants living under the feudal tyranny in southern panjab and rural sindh, will not have this amount of cash!!
It is well documented in Britain, that if it hadn`t been for Mirpuries, sikhs from Jalandhar, and Bengalies from Sylhet britain wouldn`t have been able to rebuild so fast after the second world war- be it it`s textile mills, steel mills, and cars factories.
Mirpuries have played their part in making Britain the 4th biggest economy in the World
#65 Posted by nakhok on May 4, 2004 7:39:19 pm
# 33 dost-mittar
+++++
Suhrawardi was no proletariat; he had quite an aristocratic pedigree; I dont think he was a Bengali ethnically.
+++++
Suhrawardy was no proleteriat. But he wasn`t from a feudal background either. And, yes, though the family hailed from Midanpore in West Bengal, it wasn`t ethnically Bengali.
He became the last Prime Minister of United Bengal after the 1946 elections but by 14th of August, 1947 he found himself marginalized by Khwaja Nazimuddin with the backing of Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah.
He was not allowed into Pakistan immediately after partition and had to stay back in India. Those that have seen Richard Attenborough`s ``Gandhi`` surely remember Suhrawardy on a peace mission (in collaboration with Gandhi) in Kolkata in independent India.
Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh describes the situation as:
``Suhrawardy did not come to Pakistan immediately after partition. ..... he stayed back in Calcutta engaging himself in a peace mission along with Gandhi. On the other hand, his relations with the Muslim League high command, now at the helm of affairs of the new state of Pakistan, were far from cordial. In 1949, his membership of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly was terminated by the Liaquat government on a plea of not being a permanent resident of the country.``
I am not sure what Mantolives (# 44) was trying to prove by associating Suhrawardy with a Lahore postal address from October 1947 to January 1948. But the Liaqat Ali Khan government certainly didn`t think much of this alleged association and had Suhrawardy`s membership of Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly terminated under the pretext that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of the country!
Interestingly, Liaqat Ali Khan had no difficulty in getting himself a membership in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as a representative from East Pakistan!!!
dost-mittar has correctly pointed out that though the Suhrawardy family hailed from Midnapore in West Bengal, its members were not ethnically Bengali. But when Suhrawardy could finally involve himself in Pakistan politics, he, unlike the West Pakistan based Muslim League establishment, was all in favour of solving the Bangali-non-Bangali problems within the framework of united Pakistan on the basis of equal rights and power-sharing.
1954 saw the first elections (only for the provinicial government) in East Pakistan. Muslim League was comprehensively beaten by a coalition (Jukto Front) headed by Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq. It also marked the political comeback of Suhrawardy who was very much a part of the Jukto Front headed by Sher-e-Bangla Falul Huq.
Suhrawardy made a significant contribution to the framing of the 1956 constitution of Pakistan. As Law Minister, he played a leading role in the signing of the 1955 Muree Pact between the leaders of the two wings of Pakistan which paved the way for the formulation of this constitution.
But Suhrawardy`s comeback was just temporary. The ``October Revolution`` of 1958 made sure of that by abrogating the Constitution. ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan exiled all ``trouble-makers`` from East Pakistan like Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq, Suhrawardy and even the young Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (who was still in his thirties) from active politics by EBDOing them en masse!
Suhrawardy died alone in a hotel room in Beirut, Lebanon, allegedly of a heart attack.
+++++
Suhrawardi was no proletariat; he had quite an aristocratic pedigree; I dont think he was a Bengali ethnically.
+++++
Suhrawardy was no proleteriat. But he wasn`t from a feudal background either. And, yes, though the family hailed from Midanpore in West Bengal, it wasn`t ethnically Bengali.
He became the last Prime Minister of United Bengal after the 1946 elections but by 14th of August, 1947 he found himself marginalized by Khwaja Nazimuddin with the backing of Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah.
He was not allowed into Pakistan immediately after partition and had to stay back in India. Those that have seen Richard Attenborough`s ``Gandhi`` surely remember Suhrawardy on a peace mission (in collaboration with Gandhi) in Kolkata in independent India.
Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh describes the situation as:
``Suhrawardy did not come to Pakistan immediately after partition. ..... he stayed back in Calcutta engaging himself in a peace mission along with Gandhi. On the other hand, his relations with the Muslim League high command, now at the helm of affairs of the new state of Pakistan, were far from cordial. In 1949, his membership of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly was terminated by the Liaquat government on a plea of not being a permanent resident of the country.``
I am not sure what Mantolives (# 44) was trying to prove by associating Suhrawardy with a Lahore postal address from October 1947 to January 1948. But the Liaqat Ali Khan government certainly didn`t think much of this alleged association and had Suhrawardy`s membership of Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly terminated under the pretext that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of the country!
Interestingly, Liaqat Ali Khan had no difficulty in getting himself a membership in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as a representative from East Pakistan!!!
dost-mittar has correctly pointed out that though the Suhrawardy family hailed from Midnapore in West Bengal, its members were not ethnically Bengali. But when Suhrawardy could finally involve himself in Pakistan politics, he, unlike the West Pakistan based Muslim League establishment, was all in favour of solving the Bangali-non-Bangali problems within the framework of united Pakistan on the basis of equal rights and power-sharing.
1954 saw the first elections (only for the provinicial government) in East Pakistan. Muslim League was comprehensively beaten by a coalition (Jukto Front) headed by Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq. It also marked the political comeback of Suhrawardy who was very much a part of the Jukto Front headed by Sher-e-Bangla Falul Huq.
Suhrawardy made a significant contribution to the framing of the 1956 constitution of Pakistan. As Law Minister, he played a leading role in the signing of the 1955 Muree Pact between the leaders of the two wings of Pakistan which paved the way for the formulation of this constitution.
But Suhrawardy`s comeback was just temporary. The ``October Revolution`` of 1958 made sure of that by abrogating the Constitution. ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan exiled all ``trouble-makers`` from East Pakistan like Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq, Suhrawardy and even the young Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (who was still in his thirties) from active politics by EBDOing them en masse!
Suhrawardy died alone in a hotel room in Beirut, Lebanon, allegedly of a heart attack.
#64 Posted by HisExcellency on May 4, 2004 7:39:18 pm
#53 by Romair
#52 by Urstruly
I stand corrected. Southern Punjabi landlords actually wield more power than the central and northern Punjabi landlords. My observations were based on my own experiences (my family owns a few hundred acres of land in Sargodha). My father served as a DIG in Dera Ghazi Khan some time in the early 1990s. This area is the stronghold of five important feudal clans: Leghari, Khosa, Khar, Dareshak and Hiraj clans.
The central Punjab feudal families (Tiwanas, Sheikhs, Pirachas, Qureshis, Ghummans, Khichis, Dahas, Noons, Bhattis) had many intra-family rivalries. So after land reforms, when they divided up some of their land among their cousins... those cousins eventually emerged as challengers to the erstwhile powerful patriarchs.
This did not happen in southern Punjab to that extent. The Leghari cousins (Maqsood Leghari and Jaffar Leghari) did not turn against Farooq Leghari after Bhutto`s land reforms. Had they done so, Farooq Leghari would certainly have been just one of the landlords, instead of the powerful Sardar he now has become in that region.
However, despite the apparent feudal power enjoyed by Legharis and Khosas in Dera Ghazi Khan, I did not find people ``quivering in fear`` of these tribes so to speak. Zulfikar Khosa and Farooq Leghari are both revered in this region (despite the occasional scandal involving their sons)... More importantly, these feudals have also maintained an open court at their house where people often get free lunch and seek favors.
The trouble with feudalism is not that the feudals of Sindh, Baluchistan or southern Punjab are necessarily cruel people. The trouble with feudalism is that it fosters a mindset of fatalism, dependency, stagnation and (psychological, if not physical) subservience to the feudal lord. This essentially retards the upward mobility of the people.
In central Punjab, the muzaara not only got some land but also decided to send his son to the city for employment. Not only did this bring more income, it also resulted a sea-change in the mindset of the muzaara`s family. Economic empowerment brings social exposure as well as democratization. (A landed peasant cannot remain isolated from markets if he wants to use his land to generate revenue; he also has to respect his wife, children, cousins and brothers because he needs them to increase the family income). In due course, the landed peasant will graduate from farmer... to crop trader... to retailer... to factory owner... to industrialist (over several generations of course).
In contrast, the peasant living under the paternalistic shadow of a feudal lord will always depend on his master`s generosity. He and his family will never move up the social ladder... for generations to come.
The problem with feudalism is systemic. Even if a feudal lord is benign, his peasants will remain economically and socially powerless.
#52 by Urstruly
I stand corrected. Southern Punjabi landlords actually wield more power than the central and northern Punjabi landlords. My observations were based on my own experiences (my family owns a few hundred acres of land in Sargodha). My father served as a DIG in Dera Ghazi Khan some time in the early 1990s. This area is the stronghold of five important feudal clans: Leghari, Khosa, Khar, Dareshak and Hiraj clans.
The central Punjab feudal families (Tiwanas, Sheikhs, Pirachas, Qureshis, Ghummans, Khichis, Dahas, Noons, Bhattis) had many intra-family rivalries. So after land reforms, when they divided up some of their land among their cousins... those cousins eventually emerged as challengers to the erstwhile powerful patriarchs.
This did not happen in southern Punjab to that extent. The Leghari cousins (Maqsood Leghari and Jaffar Leghari) did not turn against Farooq Leghari after Bhutto`s land reforms. Had they done so, Farooq Leghari would certainly have been just one of the landlords, instead of the powerful Sardar he now has become in that region.
However, despite the apparent feudal power enjoyed by Legharis and Khosas in Dera Ghazi Khan, I did not find people ``quivering in fear`` of these tribes so to speak. Zulfikar Khosa and Farooq Leghari are both revered in this region (despite the occasional scandal involving their sons)... More importantly, these feudals have also maintained an open court at their house where people often get free lunch and seek favors.
The trouble with feudalism is not that the feudals of Sindh, Baluchistan or southern Punjab are necessarily cruel people. The trouble with feudalism is that it fosters a mindset of fatalism, dependency, stagnation and (psychological, if not physical) subservience to the feudal lord. This essentially retards the upward mobility of the people.
In central Punjab, the muzaara not only got some land but also decided to send his son to the city for employment. Not only did this bring more income, it also resulted a sea-change in the mindset of the muzaara`s family. Economic empowerment brings social exposure as well as democratization. (A landed peasant cannot remain isolated from markets if he wants to use his land to generate revenue; he also has to respect his wife, children, cousins and brothers because he needs them to increase the family income). In due course, the landed peasant will graduate from farmer... to crop trader... to retailer... to factory owner... to industrialist (over several generations of course).
In contrast, the peasant living under the paternalistic shadow of a feudal lord will always depend on his master`s generosity. He and his family will never move up the social ladder... for generations to come.
The problem with feudalism is systemic. Even if a feudal lord is benign, his peasants will remain economically and socially powerless.
#63 Posted by malik99 on May 4, 2004 7:39:18 pm
Dost-mittar # 62 - You wrote: ``..could you please tell me what else could I observe from a distance sitting in a moving car? ``
persumably those women were wearing some other stuff too - like colorful shalwar / kameez, lehnga, etc etc. Why did you find their not wearing the dupatta the only worth mentioning item?
mittar sahib - maybe you are a well meaning person, but I am tired of this hijab-bashing. When culturally insensitive hijab-bashers visit muslim countries, they tend to zero-in on hijab - as if ALL other (and REAL) womens` problems such as lack of education, feminin healthcare etc are secondary to this piece cloth.
persumably those women were wearing some other stuff too - like colorful shalwar / kameez, lehnga, etc etc. Why did you find their not wearing the dupatta the only worth mentioning item?
mittar sahib - maybe you are a well meaning person, but I am tired of this hijab-bashing. When culturally insensitive hijab-bashers visit muslim countries, they tend to zero-in on hijab - as if ALL other (and REAL) womens` problems such as lack of education, feminin healthcare etc are secondary to this piece cloth.
#62 Posted by dost_mittar on May 4, 2004 6:27:04 pm
malik99:
``I congratulate you for having a keen and sharp eye to not only have noticed the lack of `burqa` but also to have pointed this out to your readers as your ONLY observation about those hapless village women.``
..could you please tell me what else could I observe from a distance sitting in a moving car?
zamir1:
Thanks for some good info.
``However I am wondering about your opinion regarding the average people, did you come up with the same view as Mrs. Margaret Thatcher “I saw no one hungry or bare-foot in Pakistan” or a different opinion.``
I saw many beggars in and around Data Darbar at Lahore and also in other places, but they were not as numerous and pesky than the ones in Delhi or Dhaka.
nakhok:
All I knew about Fazul Huq was that he was the chief minister in East Pakistan at one time and had moved the Pak resolution. Thanks for a more detailed background. Re. the land reforms in East Pakistan, I wonder if the reforms were easier to implement because most of the hated landlords were hindus.
sadna:
Yes, that Sheshan might have had a big ego and a total failure as a politician but he does deserve a lot of credit for cleaning up the electoral mess.
``I congratulate you for having a keen and sharp eye to not only have noticed the lack of `burqa` but also to have pointed this out to your readers as your ONLY observation about those hapless village women.``
..could you please tell me what else could I observe from a distance sitting in a moving car?
zamir1:
Thanks for some good info.
``However I am wondering about your opinion regarding the average people, did you come up with the same view as Mrs. Margaret Thatcher “I saw no one hungry or bare-foot in Pakistan” or a different opinion.``
I saw many beggars in and around Data Darbar at Lahore and also in other places, but they were not as numerous and pesky than the ones in Delhi or Dhaka.
nakhok:
All I knew about Fazul Huq was that he was the chief minister in East Pakistan at one time and had moved the Pak resolution. Thanks for a more detailed background. Re. the land reforms in East Pakistan, I wonder if the reforms were easier to implement because most of the hated landlords were hindus.
sadna:
Yes, that Sheshan might have had a big ego and a total failure as a politician but he does deserve a lot of credit for cleaning up the electoral mess.
#61 Posted by dost_mittar on May 4, 2004 6:16:23 pm
Anil:
Sorry I lumped your quote with dullabhati`s.
``I strongly suggest that you might like to read Marx, as a reporter, had covered, and NY news paper had published his report on Zamindari, Royyatwari and Patwari nexus; and then compare today`s Bihar, our own backyard, forget about Pakistan``
I`ll make a mental note of it.
Please give me a call or email me before you come. And remember that I live in Ottawa, not Toronto.
ally:
``its no biggy, India has already started massive motoway, no?``
I have seen a portion of the golden quadrilateral under construction. The tollway is much better than the regular Indian highways but is nowhere near like the M2.
Urstruly:
Welcome back!
``This is one of the reasons that feudal-army nexus in this country keep the system and institutions corrupt, incompetent, and even non-existent - these are the necessary pre-requisite for running a paternalistic dependent society.``
So, do you agree with Romair that it is only the mullahs who can take on the feudals? [somehow I doubt that you REALLY like the mullahs; you are too much of a funloving person for that!]
dullahbhatti:
``In fact now they don`t even have to hide their true intentions on whom to vote for...soem will openly state...kamm di saanjh wakhri rai, par vote asiN pawaNge jithey sada jee karoo.``
..that`s more like what I would have thought.
HE:
``They have to continually invest in their village folk to gain their respect. Every year, a dozen young lads leave the village to seek employment in the city. The landlord is expected to help these boys find employment in the city through his connections. It is understood that in the absence of these lads, the landlord is also responsible for medical treatment of their families.``
..this was also my understanding.
Sorry I lumped your quote with dullabhati`s.
``I strongly suggest that you might like to read Marx, as a reporter, had covered, and NY news paper had published his report on Zamindari, Royyatwari and Patwari nexus; and then compare today`s Bihar, our own backyard, forget about Pakistan``
I`ll make a mental note of it.
Please give me a call or email me before you come. And remember that I live in Ottawa, not Toronto.
ally:
``its no biggy, India has already started massive motoway, no?``
I have seen a portion of the golden quadrilateral under construction. The tollway is much better than the regular Indian highways but is nowhere near like the M2.
Urstruly:
Welcome back!
``This is one of the reasons that feudal-army nexus in this country keep the system and institutions corrupt, incompetent, and even non-existent - these are the necessary pre-requisite for running a paternalistic dependent society.``
So, do you agree with Romair that it is only the mullahs who can take on the feudals? [somehow I doubt that you REALLY like the mullahs; you are too much of a funloving person for that!]
dullahbhatti:
``In fact now they don`t even have to hide their true intentions on whom to vote for...soem will openly state...kamm di saanjh wakhri rai, par vote asiN pawaNge jithey sada jee karoo.``
..that`s more like what I would have thought.
HE:
``They have to continually invest in their village folk to gain their respect. Every year, a dozen young lads leave the village to seek employment in the city. The landlord is expected to help these boys find employment in the city through his connections. It is understood that in the absence of these lads, the landlord is also responsible for medical treatment of their families.``
..this was also my understanding.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dullabhatti: this article seems to... The Future of Indo
- hamidm2: Re: # 292 salim mian, ....... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Kedar_sathe: You know you goody... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: zang #301: dont ever... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Kedar_sathe: If you feel so... Pleas For Sanity as
- jang: tahmed..this is a stanard... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Kedar_sathe: majumdar, Hindus did not... The Future of Indo
- Kedar_sathe: No chance at all.... The Future of Indo
