My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal

Dear Farzana:
``Although you have chosen to highlight an important aspect of Pakistani life, I think you are not paying much attention to women...I would have loved to know more about the feudal ladies. Are they the equivalent of the male raees-zaadas? Do they lounge on divans with takiyaas propping them? Or do they sit fanning their husbands (and their egos)?``

Shahid lives in Lahore and I only visited his village home where he stays only during his weekly visits. So, I didn`t meet his family, part of which lives in the US.
I did meet another feudal lady in Lahore who is actually settled in the US and is in Lahore only for schooling her daughters in Pakistan. She lives in a very nice home in Lahore`s exclusive Defence Colony where the smallest plot is of 1000 yards. She has worked very hard in the U.S to help her husband set up two retail food franchises where, I presume, she probably also helped clean and serve. But when we went shopping with her, in addion to the chauffeur, another servant went along to hold the shopping bags. I dont know why she still wants to go back to the US after the daughters finish their schooling.

``Is there a sturdy system like our panchayati raj there?``
I am not sure but I dont think it is along the same lines.

``What is it with Pakistanis and motorways?``
..that particular motorway is indeed a showpiece.

kaurasach:
``Firstly, the image we display when we have a `guest` over is starkly different from the reality behind the `purdah`. So it will be a misjudgement to conclude from a few hours` visit. We seldom know the reality of our neighbors of several years even in the `nosy` atmosphere of Punjab.``

good point! These observations are based on a non-random sample of one and I make no claim to be them being otherwise.

morad:
`` i would like to point out that most of the major and the so called OLD feudal families especially in Punjab got their lands and jagirs not so long back (150-200 years maximum) as awards by helping and fighting for British Empire against their own people .... ``
..except perhaps those who got it during the sikh rule...he did have several muslims in his court.

dost-mittar
#re voting in secrecy
TN Seshan during his tenure initiated the practice of bringing ballot boxes to a central location and mixing ballots from various polling booths before counting them. This prevents various party observers watching the counting from figuring out which neighbourhood voted for which party.

Of course, in places like Bihar, booth capturing/fraud would sidestep such measures.

Not sure what the situation is in the current elections with 100% use of electronic voting machines.

considering that all the progressive mirpuris went to bradford for textile work in UK, why are they the most backward immigrant group there? what happened?

Dost-mittar
Interesting article indeed. I must congratulate you on eye for details. 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.

You have raised some very interesting points about the feudal system in Pakistan.

It is correct that there exists a bond between these feudals and their people, however just because person is poor and un-educated does not mean that he has no common sense. In most cases these poor people vote according to their master’s wishes but in many cases they have ignored these wishes. The clear evidence came in the elections of 1988, when people like Jatoi and Pir Pagara were defeated by relatively unknown PPP candidates. The harees sent a simple message to Pir Sahib “Sayen – you may be our spiritual leader but Bhutto Sayen is our political leader.”

There were land reforms during Ayub Khan’s administration as well as during Bhutto’s administration. But most landowners found ways around these reforms. It is said that Asif Zardari has a fictitious wife, apparently many land owners just created fictitious names and transferred their lands to these non-existing people. More details can be found in “Who own Pakistan” – I believe this book can be found in electronic format at tripod.com.

Today there is virtually no debate about land reforms in Pakistan. The reason is because the Supreme court of Pakistan, in a landmark case, gave a judgment where it found that land reforms were unconstitutional – it is ok to confiscate the land that was acquired by illegal means but the rightfully acquired and inherited land can not be confiscated by the state.

Frankly speaking I don’t see how this feudal system can survive. Currently the ratio of urban to rural population of Pakistan is about 40:60. Estimates are that in the next twenty years this ratio will reverse. Which means there will be relatively less people available for exploitation. Mumtaz Bhutto wrote an article a while back, where he argued that the feudals are already exploring other options like leasing their land to farmers, with owners providing the equipment, fertilizers and short term loans etc. That might be the future of feudal system, where some land owners will just own the land and lease it out to poor farmers. Others might just completely get out of this business and invest their money in other ventures.

It is interesting to read your experiences in Pakistan. I personally knew very few land owners in Pakistan, I went thru the similar experiences in India where some of our relatives were land owners and where I found how a tube well exactly works.

Romair:
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. Akber S. Ahmed is correct that if you look at the background of every major ruler of Pakistan from Ayub to Nawaz Sharif, you will find that with the exceptions of two Bhuttos every ruler came from a middle class background, including Nawaz Sharif, whose father migrated to Pakistan with virtually nothing and created one of the largest industrial empire in the country.

# 33 dost-mittar

+++++
I dont know about Fazalul Haq.....
+++++

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq was the voice of the farmers and the laborers of Bengal. In the 1937 elections, for example, Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq contested Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin in the elections in a constituency that was basically the latter`s zamindari. Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin was a leading zamindar, a polished politician, first cousin to the Nawab of Dhaka and an Executive Member. Fazlul Huq heading his Krishak Praja Party (the Party of sharecroppers) told the voters that ``he came from a family having no resources.`` He declared that ``by the grace of God,`` he would abolish zamindari ``within the shortest possible time,`` and that the ``peasantry of Bengal were dearest to his heart.`` Needless to day, Shere-e-Bangla of K.P.P. handily defeated Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin of the Muslim League in a constituency that more or less comprised of the the latter`s zamindari.

Fazlul Huq became the first Premier of united Bengal in 1937 as the leader of Krishak Praja Party (Sharecroppers` Party). The Muslim League hadn`t fared well in that elections and it started to woo Fazlul Huq. It succeeded to the point that Fazlul Huq was the one who moved the so-called Pakistan Resolution at the Lahore session of the Muslim League in 1940.

However, soon enough Shere-e-Bangla and the Qaid-e-Azam fell out and for understandable reasons. Fazlul Huq was giving voice to the toiling sharecroppers and small farmers. The All India Muslim League establishment, on the other hand, was dominated by the aristocrats of United Provinces and the mercantile community of the Bombay Presidency. Land Reform or social justice in Bengal was just not in the top of its agenda.

Inevitably, within months of the Pakistan resolution of 1940, irreconciliabel differences surfaced between Huq and Jinnah. Sher-e-Bangla was just not willing to take orders from the Qaid-e-Azam. Jinnah had Huq expelled from the Muslim League. It is quite another matter that Huq claimed that such expulsion was meaningless because Huq had never oficially been a member of the Muslim League.

In 1943, at the time of his fall from power, Fazlul Huq was the Premier of Bengal as the head of a non-Muslim League coalition. The Muslim League was the main opposition in the Bengal Legislature. It was in February of 1943 that Fazlul Huq promised an enquiry into the excesses of the British Raj during the suppression of the Quit India Movement in Midnapore. He did so on the floor of the Legislature. Bengal Governor, Herbert, was livid with rage. He forced Fazlul Huq`s resignation. And finally in April of 1943 he had Khwaja Nazimuddin of Muslim League sworn in as the Premier of Bengal.

By 14th August of 1947, Nazimuddin with the backing of Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah, had succeeded in marginalizing not just Fazlul Huq but even Suhrawardy, the last Premier of united Bengal. Suhrawardy, in fact, was not even allowed entry into Pakistan after the partition. The Muslim League establishment forced Suhrawardy to cool his heels in independent India for a year or two. It was only after Jinnah`s death that Suhrawardy was finally able to go to Dhaka via Karachi!

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 Fazlul Huq. Fazlul Huq`s Krishak Praja SHRAMIK Party was an important constituent of the Jukto Front. The word SHRAMIK had been added to the old name of Fazlul Huq`s party to broaden its appeal to the labor in the industrial sector.

The Muslim League of Nazimuddin, Nuril Amin and Monem Khan bit the dust in that election. But Fazlul Huq`s days in power didn`t extend beyond a couple of months in spite of his landslide election victory. He was accused of being an Indian agent (much as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would be a decade later at the infamous Agartala Conspiracy Case). He was accused of treason and unceremoniously kicked out by the Muslim League establishment. Sher-e-Bangla complained bitterly, after that humiliation, that even the Britsh Governor, Herbert, had treated him with more dignity in 1943.

``Field Mrashal`` Ayub Khan had openly written of his disdain for Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq in his ghost-written autobiography, ``Friends Not Masters``. The ``Field Marshal`` would later have him ``EBDO``ed that not only barred him from running for office but even took away his voting rights. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq died a broken-hearted man in Ayub Khan`s Pakistan.

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

dost-mittar: You wrote ``We passed through agricultural fields where women were working and walking together without any hijab or burqa.``

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. It is as if this was the ONLY information that mattered about them. You did not notice anything about their lack of education, their working with antiquated equipment, or the horrible social ills they face. Great Job ! Now that we know that they don`t wear burqa, we can all sleep easy.

Zain Malik

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.

For example, Legharis are a Baluchi tribe. But the get elected from Punjab. Leghari(s) are amongst the most powerful landowners in Pakistan. Farooq Leghari was President, and is currently an MNA. His son, barely out of college, is the current minister of S&T. And his party, filled with his own family members, has more seats than many national parties.

This is the part of Pakistan, where I lived for a while. Hence my exposure to some feudalism. Life there can make a grown man, cry.

The interesting part of these feudals is that their own kids are completely Westernized. They are all educated in the USA; some in Ivy Leagues. They live in Lahore ad Karachi. On the face of it, very enlightened. Some even write on Chowk. They work for NGOs. Some are fashion models. Very secular and very anti-maulvi. They write for Friday Times sort of newspapers, in many cases on women`s rights. Their daughter go to Harvard, and write poetry and columns on the problems faced by Pakistani poor, and on the important of democracy and human rights.

However, they live off the bonded labor and miseries of little girls working in the fields, on their lands, who will never progress as long as the above feudal class is around.

Quite ironic.

HE

You need to get out more. Take a trip through Punjab`s underbelly - starting from Sadiqabad in East thru Siraiki belt to Dera Jaat to the Eastern shore of River Sindh at Kalabagh and to Sargodha & Mianwaali. The curse lives.

The land reforms of Ayub and Bhutto have significantly altered the character of feudalism in Punjab. It can be safely assumed that there are no feudals in Punjab: there are only hundreds of landlords and large agriculturists/farmers. These landlords are rich primarily because the land is fertile, not because of feudal power. They cannot take the loyalties of their village folks for granted.

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.

At election time, these small favors help the landlord. But rural constituencies are large: they usually comprise 5-10 villages. So a landlord who owns 2-3 villages cannot get elected just by himself. A friend of mine from Sialkot won the election in 2002 from a rural constituency. During his election campaign, he freely distributed ``Sohrab`` bicycles in six villages to win the support of the people.

If today feudalism is thriving, it is in Sindh and Baluchistan. Now these feudals are real feudals. It is these feudals who are assured of their seats in any election. It is these feudals who evaded/circumvented the land reforms of Ayub and Bhutto. It is these feudals who are leading the nationalist movements in Sindh and Baluchistan, primarily because they don`t want their feudal powers to be eroded.

Captain Clueless,
it seems like, one cant teach a pak-fauji new thinking.

Dude, all of the subcontinent is made of similiar people -
same history (but perceived differently by different groups)
different values - one group wants to identify with arabia/persia, the other
group respects its land and its traditions.

Also, look at the contradictory statements being made:
a) In India, it is claimed that the muslims are backward, because all the leaders
and middle class went to Pakiland in 1947
b) in Pakiland, they claim that there were no intelligentsia in 1947 and that is why the
land of the pure is backward

Only one statement can be true....or should we start blaming the usual suspects...

DM: I think at leats in India Punjab my experience is that voting secrecy has been very good and as a result some of the kammi people will promise to their ``employers`` to vote one way but to the opposite. Things have changed a lot in the last 30/40 years. e.g. in my own native village no one can be sarpanch without the support of kammi communities, which resulted in more respect or fairer treatment for kammis. 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.

Kaurasach: I am also from where dharti mukk jaandi ay. Chooras or laborers, dihaaRidaars were always compensated as you go...but people like Lohaar, Tarkhaan, naayee, raja, mehra etc that did not work long hours for you at a time...instead small things like daatri de danday kaDne, fixing the squeaking manjha etc which takes small amout of time.....they still collect grain at the end of the season for such things.....eg. raja or nayee gets paid at evey wedding or death or whatever ceremony but he still collects at the season end. You are right it is not as black and white as it used to be.

dost-mittar #33: ``If there is a feudal-military nexus and a feudal-politicain nexus, then the only choice would be between the feudal and the mullahs, and you have already shown where your preference is. But I dont think that the picture has to be that bleak. In India, too, the rajas and nawabs had similar power and many of them successfully entered politics ...and actually proving better than the professional politician in some cases``

I do not have much detailed understanding of Indian politics. However, based on what I have read, I don`t think one can compare it to Pakistani politics. Even though people try to make a comparison.

One cannot even remotely compare the power of a Pakistani feudal will that of an ex-Nawab of India. Benazir could nominate her dog and it will win in elections (seriously speakiing)......I doubt an ex-Nawab could do that......

Indian political system and intellegnsia was way beyond Pakistan`s at the time of independence. The areas constituting Pakistan were like the Afghanistan of South Asia. Backwards, illiterate, feudal and rural, at a much higher level than India. Specifically, there was no urban class. Other than Lahore and Punjab University, what else was their on the urban side. Even the people who founded the country were from India. And the first phase of skilled technocrats came as Muslim Muhajirs from India.

Nehru was able to get rid of the Nawabs and jagirdars control on land and thus on politics, primarily because India had an urban counterweight. And because of Nehru`s own popularality. Pakistan had no urban counterweight. And Jinnah died. After that the feudals got back their power. Jinnah, I think, would have sorted out feudalism in ten years or so. He was the only one who could have, since he had popularity as the country`s founder.

This is why politics in Pakistan does not advance. It is too simplistic to just blame the Army. Obviously, the Army is to blame, for stunting the system. But every country has its set of ambitious generals who think they can do a better job than the civilians. I know USA has had them. However, they cannot take over, even if they wanted to, because the public has faith in the political system. That is the deterence.

In Pakistan, the public could care less, because the political system is dominated by the feudals. Hence, it (non-Chowk public) actually celebrates, in many cases, if the politicians get the boot.

Shahid is small fry when it comes to feudals. In fact, he is not a feudal. Seventy families equal 200 votes. That could barely win him a council seat, if that. He is more like a Chaudhry of a village. Large Sindhi, Baluchi and Southern Punjabi (where Punjab meets the other two provinces) feudals literally own their constituencies. Bugtis, Mazaris, etc. own Baluchistan. Fahim, Pogaros, Bhuttos, Talpurs, Mehr, Makhdooms, Jatois etc. literally own rural Sind.

The bond betweent the peasant and the feudal is one of necessity from the peasant`s side. The feudal is the judiciary, executive and legislature of the areas, where the peasant lives. Govt. facilities cannot reach the area, because the feudal does not want these facilities on his land. If the peasant is empowered, he will revolt. So why empower him?

I doubt there are too many areas in India, where a feudal can rape a woman, make her march naked across the village, and then get elected an be appointed a Minister. And get away with it. In Pakistan, this is common. All the honor killings occur in the lands of the Jamalis and the Fahims and the Khars etc. They don`t occur in the lands of MQM, or in MMA`s Mansoora or in Army Cantonments.

The system has not been changed, because feudals own the legislature. They ensure all such acts are not prosecuted. This is why feudals are on the forefront of elections and democracy. Nearly every big feudal is into politics. When every doctor, businessman, fauji, comp. scientist, labor leader, maulvi etc. is not. Why are the profession of the feudal and politics so related? Shouldn`t the feudals be worried more about agriculture? f At least a majority them? When do they get time for agriculture? Why are they in politics to begin with? Because they want to ensure the longevity of the current electoral system, so that no one can come after them.

This is different from India. India is rural like Pakistan. But it is not feudal. One man does not own the livelihood of a whole voting constituency. He has to beg the voters for votes. He cannot threaten them; at least not all of them.

There are only three political forces in Pakistan: Feudal, Army and Maulvi. All three have negative long term consequences in politics. There is no fourth force, at all. This is why I am not as anti-Musharraf as many others. If he goes, it will be the feudal or maulvi who will replace him. Others seem to have a romantic notion of some fourth force developing that will replace him, which his presence is resisting. What is that fourth force? Where is it? Is it going to appear from thin air? If there is one, then I would oppose Musharraf. But there isn`t. And feudals and maulvis will and have screwed up Pakistan, far more than Musharraf ever will or can.....Unless of course, his family also joins the feudals, like Ayub`s and Zia`s.

In a bit of idealism, I initially thought MQM would be a fourth force. But it is too ethnic and local. Then I supported Tehrik of Imran Khan. However, even though it is a national party, it has only won one seat. Leghari, a powerful Baluchi feudal in Punjab, won more seats just through his direct relatives. Him, his son and his neice (and probably others) are all MNAs. I doubt any of them have to request their constituents for votes, like Indian ex-Nawabs have to. Leghari`s immediate family is much more powerful in national politics than a potential fourth force, in the form of a national party, like Tehrik-e-Insaaf!!!

Each election, under the current system, will bring in one of the above three forces. This is once again different from India, where there have always been multiple forces.

The feudals, are by far, the most shrewd political group in Pakistan. Far more shrewd than the Army or the maulvi. Generals have come and have gone. Maulvis have only now arrived after 55 years on the outside. But Bhuttos, Legharis, Pagoros, Hayats etc. have been there since day one. And are still there. Twenty years from now, Musharraf will be unknown, his son will be working in the USA, while Bilawal Bhutto will be the PM of Pakistan. And Leghari`s grandson will be a Minister, as will Abida Hussain`s daughter.

I think, eventually, unless the system is changed, people will be so fed up of feudals, that they will go full-fledged in the directions of mauvlis. Since there is only one entity that the peasants fear more than the feudal. And that is God. And that is what the maulvis appeal to for political purposes. In the process, secularism will be out the door also, since people associate secularism with inefficient feudalism, since nearly all feudals are member of non-religious parties.

Feudalism takes either a few generations of urbanisation, as occured in what is now India, pre-47. Or it takes a civil war, as what occured in the USA. Or it takes a revolution (China??), either through the people, or through a dictatorship. Or it takes massive industrial progress, which feudals will always resist, since that will make businessmen and labor more powerful than landowners.

All of this, makes the political environment in Pakistan quite different than that in India. Even though both countries are rural and poor, and on the face of it, look similar politically.

Dost Mitter

I am in complete agreement with the conclusions you have drawn regarding the paternalistic relationship between feudal and his workers/subjects/mazaraas. These conclusions can easily be extrapolated to include the feudal of any size. 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. In addition, the in-breeding of feudals and army is making the things worst.

DM

i dont know what Indian Punjab is like, but being Punjabi you should know from the various films, stories, and books what the reality of rural life is... like was said earlier these are just one way commands that appear to be bonds...

i wonder what the servants actually think of Shahid? i wonder what they say about him when they go home? i wonder what goes on in their head and what they feel?

of course they will put on a happy face to visitors, they do what they have to do to survive, not because they have somekind of loving bond...

Regards the Motorway and Airports

its no biggy, India has already started massive motoway, no?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/246752.stm

Airports are just symbols that each new govt added to show the ppl `look at what i have done for u` Bibi got kicked out using the lovely new airport at KHI that she built, and NS got kicked from LHE tho it was completed after him... whoopee do, what good are they when no one flies to them anyways!!!

Farzana

The ladies of the big zamindaars do live a life of leisure and luxury, albeit secluded and away from public eyes... they have their teams of servants, and so do their husbands, most of them become fat from doing nothing, they usually come from other zamindaar families...

PS: Before some self styled smart a$$ puts up a comment about my previous post, let me add this disclaimer... when I put up stuff it is always in response to another post by another interactor designed to deviate this discussion.