|
The subject of Land Reforms is so emotive that it catapults opinions
into the realm of extreme sentimentality and reduces the intricate
issue into a naïve over-simplification of whether large land
holdings should be appropriated by the state or not. Having had three
Land Reforms of 1959, 1972 and 1977 by which hereditary agricultural
estates were whittled down progressively from individual holdings
of five digit numbers in acres to three digit numbers, may be four
in rare cases. Yet the protagonists feel that those Reforms did not
achieve the desired purpose and fresh attempt is called for today.
To unravel the multifaceted complexity of the issue let us begin by
understanding the prime rationale (and sentiments) behind Land Reforms.
There are two ostensible motives: One is that large land holdings
provide sustenance to a class of powerful families with a mindset
that is not conducive for advancement of democratic and progressive
environment in country politics. This mindset is labelled as a feudal
culture. It is believed that this mindset is a product of indolence
of surplus land and resuming it from such families would eradicate
a social evil from the society. The second assumption is that large
land owners do not concentrate efforts on productivity; resuming their
lands and distributing it amongst landless rural peasantry would enhance
efficiencies because small farmers would put in more effort to increase
yields. The redistribution of land would therefore increase aggregate
agricultural production besides creating more equity in rural areas.
Both these assumptions have outlived their validity for two reasons:
One, because agriculture has moved out of the 'subsistence' mode into
a 'commercial' mode over the past few decades and hence productivity
is not a linear function of acreage any more - more land doesn't necessarily
mean more income. Secondly, the Establishment has evolved sophisticated
means of manipulating power brokers right down to the grass root levels
(especially after devolution) and for this it doesn't need the organic
influence of the landed gentry anymore. The rules of 'power brokerage'
are determined by Establishment through the intelligence agencies
while the spirit of feudal manipulation has suffused horizontally
and vertically in the society. The urban trader/industrialists have
mastered the craft - the Chowdry and the Mian clans have outdone every
feudal - as the Establishment has embraced the essence of feudalism
through sophisticated governance structures and modern tools of control.
Ayub Khan used the feudals like knights and castles (his queen was
Nawab of Kalabagh, the super feudal) but today's Establishment has
reduced them to expendable pawns. So a nexus between land and political
power is a redundant notion. The feudal mindset still remains a barrier
to modernising the country but agricultural land holding is no more
the sanctuary of the malaise that has spread like cancer to higher
organs of the national polity.
Having discounted old myths, let us look at Land Reforms in a more
rational perspective since there are many more dimensions to it than
politics alone. To begin with, on a conceptual level, let us get the
logic correct. Eliminating large agricultural land holdings because
owners abuse the power it confers is like throwing the baby out of
the window with the bathwater. Abuse of power is not the sole prerogative
of the feudals; would we apply the same principles to abuses of power
by the industrialists, the bureaucracy and the military? Should we
abolish industries, civil services and armed forces on the basis of
this approach to curing abuse of power? It is a delicate matter of
inter-sectoral equity. If there are no ceilings on other forms of
productive assets like urban property, industrial assets, financial
portfolios or service establishments (lawyers, doctors, transporters,
hoteliers, brokers etc.) then limiting agricultural land holdings
amounts to economic discrimination of a class of people in the society.
Article 23 of the Constitution states, "Every citizen shall have
the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of
Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions
imposed by law in the public interest." Shariat Appellate Bench
of the Supreme Court has already proclaimed Land Reforms to be against
tenets of Islam, perhaps on the grounds stated above.
Last three Land Reforms managed to resume less than 8 percent of total
privately owned land in the country and distribute it amongst less
than 1 percent of rural poor. The government is considering closing
down the Federal Land Commission office because it has no significant
functions to perform anymore. A handful of unresolved appeals are
being wound up. The Provincial Land Commissions will continue to perform
their functions of supervising management of resumed estates, mostly
livestock/stud farms and shikargah lands. If this is the quantum of
reforms that were instituted four or five decades ago (that reduced
individual holding to 8,000 Produce Index Units (PIUs) or 100 acres
irrigated), what could be achieved today, even allowing for the loopholes
that the collusion of revenue officials and landlords would exploit.
Deferring the absolute inadequacy of acres or PIUs as the correct
measure for farm size for the moment, let us see what fresh Land Reforms
would achieve today. The main objection to past Land Reforms has been
that land ceiling was placed on individual holding and not family
holding. If by a draconian measure the existing ceiling was to be
applied to a family (husband-wife), or individual holding halved,
it would assume that each person would be allowed to own no more than
Rs. 10 million worth of land assets. This is taking a very bright
view of average value of land at Rs. 200,000 per acre across Pakistan.
A family would own assets worth Rs. 20 million, which is the definition
of a Small Enterprise by State Bank of Pakistan's Prudential Regulations.
It is equivalent to a small workshop or a retail shop in urban areas.
If this is the aim of Land Reforms, then according to Agriculture
Census 2000 - 2001 data, 11 percent of privately owned land in Pakistan
would be effected - 6 percent in Punjab, 9 percent in NWFP, 14 percent
in Sindh and 32 percent in Baluchistan. Since PIUs are lower in Sindh
and Baluchistan because of lower productivity of lands and lack of
water, the percentage of land subject to resumption would be proportionately
lower too. Taking Punjab, the largest province and with best lands,
hardly a half, or 3 percent of land would be resumed under fresh Land
Reforms with such stringent criteria. National average may rise to
double that but that will not make a significant difference.
Larger amounts of land to be resumed in poorer provinces with greater
existing grievances will exacerbate resentment against Punjab. Will
all the political ill-will, administrative resources and uncertainty
created for commercial farming be worth the exercise for eradicating
so called feudalism and tribalism? Will rural feudal mindset evaporate
with such reforms? Will productivity get a quantum leap through 5
to 6 percent of land being redistributed amongst landless tenants?
Will political ethics improve in the country?
I seriously doubt if any of this would happen. Reforms are needed
in agricultural land holding systems, feudal mindset pervading through
the whole society requires reformation, and productivity does need
to be taken into a higher orbit. But these objectives require a different
approach based on principles of resource and infrastructure management,
not actions taken through vindictive political and social prejudices.
Iqbal Mustafa
1220 word
23 December 2004
|
