My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal

Good reading, Sirji. Sometimes I think, if there had not been this 1947 partition thing, then I too, would have been a feudal lord.

Oh well.

Thanks for a pleasant read.

mittarji:

first of all. .was the footnote necessary. does it not imply some sort of apology or defensive stance? and even if the feudal in the story is a member of chowk, tau kya hua?! :)

interesting article and very descriptive. there was a particular part which reminded me of stories that ammi has told me about life in the village. i think it was the part where you talk about some people taking their seats at a level somewhat lower than shahid`s and yours. i hope you don`t mind my sharing it.

my nana marhoom was a landowner in a couple of villages in the multan district (perhaps i have some khandaani raees in me afterall. .LOL), and it used to be the case that when people would come to visit him, they would sit in seats that were of lower height than his kursi or charpai. but then certain events changed that for him. one was the fact that he got involved in politics, and he needed to be more in touch. .and at the same level as those he would represent. but more importantly, it was my nani marhooma, who through her revived faith made nanaji see how `wrong` (for lack of a better word) it was for him to allow for himself to be at a higher seat than the people. and he loved her and trusted her enough to understand that. : )

yes the feudal does have a human face, but like many of us, it isn`t just one face. and we understand the ties that occur between a feudal and his people, but we also need to understand how damaging and exploitative the system as a whole has been to `the people`. and hopefully those reading this will understand that you are not defending or apologizing for the system per se.

regards,
n~

Another interesting article. Good to see you got the complete tour of Pakistan. I was afraid your visit would be limited to the Chowk crowds.

A point:

``His estate is spread over more than 400 acres of irrigated land.``

This probably would not put Shahid in the category of, ``feudals,`` which gets discussed here. This would put him in the category of very tiny feudal, or large farmer. Following is an article from an Indian source. However, its points are valid in this case:

``Just one landlord (Wadera), Ghulam Mohammad Mehr, owns 100,000 acres of land, and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi owns 80,000 acres when agricultural reforms restrict land holding to 150 acres.`` http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99oct18/edit.htm)

The feudals that get discussed here, fall into the category of Jatoi and Mehr and Bugtis and Mazaris and Pagaros etc. These guys are more interested in politics than in Agricultural University research. They own private armies, have jails, and own many villages. Their aim is to keep their villages backwards, so that they keep getting elected. Thereby, ensuring no land reforms and minimum, if any, agricultural tax.

People like Shahid are actually ok. Provided they provide a fair salary to their labourers, and don`t stop govt. facilities from reaching them. And take interest in their land, using technology etc. And are not interested in exploiting their land for politics (I doubt with 400 acres, they could). And are not into gadda-nasheeni and such. Infact, they may then actually be an asset to Pakistan.

The area of Punjab that you visited doesn`t really have feudalism. Real feudalism exists in Baluchistan (all of it), rural Sind (all of it) and Southern Punjab. I don`t know about NWFP.

I doubt Shahid could sit on the head of tribal jirga and pass a decision on honor killing. Or even become an MNA, for that matter, just based on his land holdings........

Great article. This is the best one so far out of the lot Dost Mittar becuase it brings out experiences that are beyond the India Today coverage of Pakistan during the cricket tour.

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

Interesting article Dost ji. I would agree with Romair on this one..400 acres don`t make him the dreaded feudal that we hear on Chowk very often. Those guys own in thousands encompassing many villages of thousands of people not 70 or 100 people. Frankly 70 or 100 people don`t even count as a village..may be a jhok or haveli as we call in Punjab.

On the other hand the feudals we keep hearing about may not be that many to start with...we keep hearing about Khars and Jatois and few others over and over again..so even if they own 100,000 acres....that is the largest feudal holding...majority of them are 5000 to 10000 and number in few hundreds say 200.. what that makes? say they average 20,000 acres..that is 20,000 x 200 = 4,000,000 acres. 4,000,000/640= 6250 sq miles...that is less than 80 x 80 miles land strip. In my view that is very exagerated number. More over this area does not inhibit more than 200,000 to at the most 500,000 people. Suppose all of them are oppressed. It still does not make a big political block to effect rest of the 150 million people. and if does then something is wrong somewhere else.

Calling rest of the farm owners with holdings of 100, 200 or 400 acres as fuedals is not fair...e.g. owning 100 acres economics works like this...total investment= 100x 10 lakh = 1000 lakh = 10 crore rs/-, = 2 million dollars. Is it a crime if some one like Shahid owning 400 acres = 8 million dollars is wearing a chita kameez shalwar and riding a Mercedes? What we expect a man with 5 million dollars net worth to ride? a khota? Car drivers, kitchen maids etc are very cheap in India/Pakistan...even couples in cities who both have jobs have at least 1 servant.

As for being two faced..cruel and benevolent at the same time...very possible..most humans are like that. we are Dev and Daaniv at the same time.

Ah... if you knew the complete story uncle mittar... I know this strong family from Sargodha environs only too well to know that their feudalism is hardly progressive. Ofcourse because you have maintained the secrecy about their family, I will not say another word. Ofcourse Punjab has had progressive feudals... maybe next time you come, I`ll take you to the Daultanas, or the Daulas or the Noons...

Still I am happy somebody has put up a different point of view on the matter...

a question from the somewhat ignorant:

does being a feudal necessarily and literally equal to the land he owns? i mean if shahid, or even my grandfather don`t own the amount of land that say the jatois, or the khars, or the bhuttos own, can`t being a feudal, or the feudal also be an attitude. .a spirit that quite a few with relatively large landholdings possess?

just curious.

Very interesting! :) Thanks for sharing your experiences.

Talk of M2 motorway is nostalgic, especially for the scenic drive through the Kallar Kahaar region. I had also contributed a bit to the motorway toll collection software project. Does anyone know what`s going on with rest of the motorway? When I visited last time, the Peshawar-Islamabad part (M1?) seemed quite close to completion.

My brother is visiting New Delhi (for the first time) for some meetings this month. Let’s see what he has to say about the Indian capital city.

#8. You are right. It is about the attitude that says..I own you..I have full control on you. I am the master. This exists independent of the land holding. Even a 10 acre land owner can treat the tenets or workers badly...have anyone had experience with Desi landlords in USA? I have not met a karkhana worker in India that was happy about his treatment by the owners. Many of them get treated like sh*hit but we do want to indutrialize still.

Very large land holding....like 100,000 acres does add an other dimension to the feudal mentality. Now the worker lives, walks, eats, breaths and finally buried in master`s land holding. He does not have independent existence from it.

dost:

...(shahid aside)...the argument for or against feudalism belongs on another plane...


...(in pakistani perspective) feudalism is a state of mind whose cancerous tentacles control and maneuver life and freedom...in conjunction with other vested usurpers...

rgds,

t

dullabhatti #6: There was an article in the Herald which described all the top feudal families in detail. The number I think must be around 600 or so. Some of the feudals also win seats from urban areas also.

If you do an analysis of the past five or so Paksitani National Assemblies, the percentage of feudals will be around 60-66%. This is a consistent number that has not gone down, regardless of how many elections that have been held. This is a good indication that feudals have a stranglehold on politics and cannot be removed through elections, under the current system. In fact, there whole purpose of getting into politics is to ensure the electoral system remains the way it is.

The biggest parties in Pakistan, PPP and PML, are both totally feudal-based. The only difference is that the complete top PPP leadership is feudal also. While in PML, the top leadership is urban.

The difference between the feudals and other politicians is that feudals are undefeatable. They literally own the livelihood of their electorate. Benazir can never lose her Larkana seat. However, NS can lose his Lahore seat. All the laws in Pakistan are designed to favor the feudal, since they are the ones who control the assemblies.

Feudals have made three very politically correct/astute moves in Pakistan.

a) they are always on the forefront of elections and democracy. They lead all the big agitations and democracy movements, including the current ARD. Even though, it their own parties, they are dictators. And in their own lands, they are kings

b) they have successfully occupied the secular sphere of Pakistani politics. None of them ever join religious parties, even though many of them are Pirs in their own areas. The more feudal a party happens to be, the more secular its leadership portrays itself to be. For example, Amin Fahim of PPP, has four sisters married to the Quran, yet he is the head of the most secular large party in Pakistan. Zafarullah Jamali will not show his wife in public, yet he is the head of the largest non-religious party in Pakistan

c) they are able to incorporate military dictators into their own groups. Ayub Khan`s next generation is fully integrated into feudal politics of PML, and is married into its most powerful families. Zia ul Haq`s son is one of the top leaders of PML. So far Musharraf has remained immune to this. Primarily because he is a Muhajir, and thus does not have a constituency in the feudal areas......

The only group that has been able to take on the feudals are the maulvis. Their votebase is the peasant and the small farmer. In the recent elections, MMA has put famers and mosque imams into the Assemblies. These people are form the other end of the social spectrum, from the feudals. You will not see them on Chowk, since they cannot write good English (or any English).

I think maulvis are going to slowly replace the feudals. They have already succeeded in NWFP and Baluchistan. This is why secular politics in Pakistan is on the decline. Not becasue people have rejected it, per se. Nor because the maulvis have anything better to offer. But because feudals have dominated it, and have given it a bad name.....

temporal:

there is no argument `for` feudalism. i`m sure dost-mittar would change his mind once he`s seen more.

Dost Mittar: Your perceptive articles make me think you should be dubbed the ``Indian de Tocqueville`` after the 19th frenchman whose insights into the US continue to reveal america to americans to this day. Admittedly that would be a stretch given that he spent a much longer time and wrote a whole book on the subject, but you nevertheless provide some fresh and keen insights.

While there are some knee-jerk reactions to your point on shahid by romair and dullbhatti, they miss a key fact that you mention: the man was having trouble getting hired help. Given the exodus to the cities, the labor market has tilted against the landlords and in facor of their former muzarrey). Also, your observations of the respectful but not kow-towing manner of the peasants to the landowner are useful in understanding the panjabi character. Had you gone to NWFP, I think you would have noticed this egalitarian attitude and self esteem of the poor man to be even more striking. The fact is that reality is more complicated than the generalizations that are freely tossed around on chowk.

On M2: It is no doubt a well-maintained highway. It`s significance to Pakistan I think is far greater than a modern means of transport between Lahore and Rawalpindi: it links ``remote`` areas of Pakistan to the modern sector. This highway, much maligned when it was being built, I think will ultimately emerge as a tribute to Nawaz Sharif, who (despite his lawless attitude which makes him unfit to ever be a prime minister again, I think) had sound economic vision and judgement.

Sharif was in fact pilloried for buying up land around M2 exits in order to benefit from the price increases when then motorway was built - but nobody`s perfect. In the US, James Madison did the same thing: he negotiated a deal whereby washington DC (along with, conveniently enough, the land owned by madison on this area) became the national capital and in return provided his much needed support to decisions that laid the foundations for different kind of national capital - namely the financial markets in securities trading which serve the US and the world to this day. It will be interesting to see if Nawaz Sharif`s vision plus personal profit motives will prove to be similarly fruitful to Pakistan over time.

Temporal
i agree with your view on ``feudalism``...it definitely is a state of mind, but at the same time question of land-holdings beyond certain point cannot be ignored....!!! Both of them have proved to be menace to human society and need to be uprooted....I guess every1 will understand when i say ``beyond certain point``, and will not take it as ``against the very idea of private ownership``.