24 replies to this topic

[Sanguine]

I was having discussion on a facebook page with an Indian guy who was boasting about how India got rid of feudalism in late 1950s. My question is can we even call Pakistan a feudal country? The little I have read makes me believe that we use the term "feudalism"  and "feudal lord" quite loosely and in reality Pakistan is not a feudal country.  What arguments can be advanced in favor of it being a feudal country?

[Guy fawkes]

Pakistan is a part Feudal Society, Part Oligarchy, Part Aristocracy, Part Plutocracy. Its a mess and a society that is going through a process of finding its roots. Yes India had success in land reforms early on because Nehru was leftist socialist and carried on those major land reform to weaken the India's century old Aristocratic and  feudal system and smaller kingdoms. But on the other Nehru's daughter started a dynasty, a farm Aristocracy that control Congress Party and largely influences the Indian governance. A country as big as India and as diverse as India cannot be democracy, it needs a central power so strong to dictate the unity. Nehru saw it and he weaken the local powers in order strengthen central power.

[Pak-Son]

Sad to say but my opinion is that Pakistan is a country ruled by feudal lords. Most of the politicians you see today in the Pakistani parliament and which ruled Pakistan in the past are belonging or belonged to feudal families. It is the reality that the feudal families have their grip on Pakistan letting no other into power whether they are sitting in the government or the opposition. Their influence is everywhere in the Pakistan society. I hope this article will give you a quick insight.


Feudal lords, Politician, Capatalist are real owner of Pakistan


http://www.markthetr...f-Pakistan.html

[sobank]

Pakistan is ruled by politicians.

Most politicians are feudal lords.

And as far as evidence for the argument goes, well all u need to do is pick up who is who in our parties. Every single one of them is based in some village. If they dont have large land holding then they are with small land holdings with big industrial investments and lots of power (political and mafia).

I dont need to give specific evidence. Cause frankly if you asking for it, then you dont know jack about Pakistani politics. And what you are asking me to show you the proof of existance of water in atlantic.

[Sanguine]

Guy Fawkes, what we forget (or perhaps we dont know) is that "feudalism" is a purely economic concept based on a number of criteria. Lets not get into features that define feudalism (based on the examination of conditions that were prevalent in Europe before the industrial revolution) but if I am not wrong, the British introduced numerous changes in agriculture with the result that it developed on capitalist lines e.g how taxes were regulated and how the far-flung places became part of money and commodity exchange system etc. The reforms done by Nehru had  very little to do with abolishing the eddifice of feudalism.

[Caesar]

I have to say this with great disappointment that Pakistan is a country ruled by a "Cartel". Yes ladies and gents ..... Military Generals and Feudral lords are the main players with puppets in the form of politicians as secondary players. The sad part .... Military and Feudral lords are the most corrupt and vicious people on this planet. So a few thousand of these Cartel people are controlling a country of 150 million!!!

[Sanguine]

Pak-Son

In simple words, feudalism is an economic system (mode of production, social formation)  where agricultural economy dominates completely, where there is little urbanization, where each unit (village, town etc) consumes very much of what it produces, with little (or may be no) exchange with other settlements. By this definition, Pakistan is not clearly a feudal country. The size of land-ownership does not determine feudalism. Farmers as well as increasingly corporate firms own tends of thousands of acres in numerous countries but no one calls these owners feudals for the farms are run on most sophisticated capitalist lines, We must not forget the disctinction between land owners and land lords (the latter being closer to the feudal model). I read the article and I am sorry to say, thats a very myopic view of feudalism and the feudal lords (perhaps the author liked "my feudal lord"). People who have never set their foor in villages come and tell you that Pakistan is a feudal country because this is what that we have been hearing for God knows how many years.




Sobank,

Feudalsim proper, with immense landholdings and tenants is not common in Pakistan today as it was in first two decades of the country's history. Large landholdings do not determine feudalism. In Pakistan we still find large landholdings in Sindh or the southern belt of Punjab. Punjab used to be  the heart of feudal tradition, but now estates are a thing of the past(the laws of inheritance take the credit for that with the result that large estates became smaller assets). In pockets of Mianwali and Attock districts, there are still a few large landholdings but in the disctricts of Rawalpindi, Chakwal, Jhelum, Mandi Bahauddin, Gujrat, Wazirabad, Gujranwala, Sheikupura, Lahore, Kasur, Sialkot, Narowal, Faisalabad , there are no big zamin dars. The norm in these districts is middle size land-holdings.

Now coming to the politic…feudal influence in politics received a major blow in 70 elections when many famous feudal were defeated at the hands of less known candidates of PPP. Bhutto did try to reverse the process by making the same waderas members of PPP but even then, there was no going back to 1930s and 40s where feudal influence meant political power.  

Today only a few landholders, no matter how big they are, can make it into assemblies without any support of either of the two major parties (PPP and PML-N). If you look at Sindh, the ticket of PPP counts more than being a wadera. In past, Jatoi needed PPP support to win from Nawabshah. Mumtaz Bhutto, who is no small landowner, made it to Sindh Assembly after several defeats in 93. Pir Pagaraa was beaten several times by the PPP candidates. So with the exception of Bhuttos in Larrkana, Nawaz Shareef in NA-95 Lahore, the Lagharis and Mazaris in D.G Khan and Khar in Muzaffargarrh, very few politicos can claim to have safe constituencies. Khar has already been defeated. But then even prior to that, Kharr enjoyed (and still enjoys) influence because of his political standing and not because he was a feudal lord (and even he is not as feudal as Tehmina Durrani portrayed him). There was a time when Sheikh Rasheed (who is not a feudal) was considered amongst those who had safe constituencies but what happened then? Bhuttos win in Larrkana not because they are big feudal (there being other big landowners as well) but because of their surname. So its only in D.G Khan that feudal influence seems to be a decisive factor (though even Laghari’s son was defeated and then became member of N.A on his father’s seat after his death).

So feudalism is, on the whole, not a decisive factor and the diminishing force is always coupled with other factors which make for rural influence and this is where the skills to interact with local bureaucracy, the police, magistracy and the revenue department count.  

Just as every memon, every Chinioti is not captain of industry, every Warraich, every Chattha, every Chadhary is not a feudal lord.

[Sanguine]

Caesar, on 17 April 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

I have to say this with great disappointment that Pakistan is a country ruled by a "Cartel". Yes ladies and gents ..... Military Generals and Feudral lords are the main players with puppets in the form of politicians as secondary players. The sad part .... Military and Feudral lords are the most corrupt and vicious people on this planet. So a few thousand of these Cartel people are controlling a country of 150 million!!!

You are very right. Where I believe feudalism is becoming a thing of past, I agree that with the breakdown of feudalism, Pakistani politics, by no means, have become more egalitarian. Its just the nature of oligarchy which has changed. We have no longer any neatly drawn lines between the military, the bureaucracy or the landowining class. Today, they all have come closer (through inter-marriages and for other political and economic intersts). Retired generals and bureaucrats are now the landowners and captains of industry. The industrialists have married into the old feudal aristocrats  A new moneyed breed has entered politics, as was rightly said by someone. So the enemy is not only feudalism (as most of us still think because of the hype given to the myth) but this oligarchy which dominates the economic, political and social life in our country.

[btruant2002]

I do not know about Pakistan situation, but as far as India is concerned, it is largely feudal, especially the rural areas. its still in the stranglehold of the fuedal lords who manipulate the electoral system regularly to come to power. and thwart most laws made for the general good of the people. progressive urbanisation has changed the situation in some areas, but there still are vast areas that remain in the dark.

[Caesar]

btruant2002, on 17 April 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

I do not know about Pakistan situation, but as far as India is concerned, it is largely feudal, especially the rural areas. its still in the stranglehold of the fuedal lords who manipulate the electoral system regularly to come to power. and thwart most laws made for the general good of the people. progressive urbanisation has changed the situation in some areas, but there still are vast areas that remain in the dark.

btruant thanks for being honest .... it is refreshing to see an indian member who knows the ground realities and is not afraid to say it.

Both India and Pakistan unfortunately still have these feudral lords ... same people who were installed by British Raj to further their evil agenda.

I want to make a bold statement here --- if these feudral lords are removed from both these countries I see a good mutual relationship developing between these two countries. Remember "Divide and Rule" the evil slogan of British is still there between these two countries thanks to the British puppets in the form of Feudral lords.

[Guy fawkes]

Fatima47, on 17 April 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

Guy Fawkes, what we forget (or perhaps we dont know) is that "feudalism" is a purely economic concept based on a number of criteria. Lets not get into features that define feudalism (based on the examination of conditions that were prevalent in Europe before the industrial revolution) but if I am not wrong, the British introduced numerous changes in agriculture with the result that it developed on capitalist lines e.g how taxes were regulated and how the far-flung places became part of money and commodity exchange system etc. The reforms done by Nehru had  very little to do with abolishing the eddifice of feudalism.

No Britons indirectly or directly promoted the Feudalism in Sub-continent to strengthen their power and use them as proxies against opposing powers. They left Feudalism even stronger than it was when they got here. Feudalism and Sufism ties grew stronger under the Brits. Brits knew the ills of Feudalism and how it kept Europe from developing. The true Capital society existed before the British invasion. You would ask how? A true Capitalism thrives and benefits people when it done without Taxation, the society which existed before the British invasion was the best business community because A trader from Sub-continent was free to trade in Persia, Arabia, Ottoman and Central Asian republics. Britons promoted the Feudalism, check all your major political families and see where did they get their lands from. Also check the Pirs and Sajada Nasheens and where did they get the land as a reward to keep the local masses from revolting.

Now your country is still ruled by Tawanas, Bhuttos, Noons, Chathas, Khers, Jutois, Awaans, Rajas etc they are got their major land holding for being Loyal to the Raj.

But things got even more complicated when Pakistan turned into Oligarch based society aka Baradari system. Check out the bureaucracy for, everything happens without a problem if you know someone. If you are Rich aka the Plutocrat, you are a king, if your Dad was a judge or political leader or some thing in society then you are aristocrat and in this care you are born in royalty and all the doors are open for you all the time.

This is why it is so hard to get even small reform so hard, this is why it is impossible to anything right unless their is a use of absolute force that scares everyone.

Unless and Until Pakistan turns into Meritocracy where decision are taken on the bases of Merit. Nothing will be solved.

the democracy you all love so much is a utopian nonsense and it never existed and it never will in the real world.

[Guy fawkes]

As far as India goes, India benefited from immediate injection of socialism. Nehru was leftist and religiously socialist for various reason. He was also Hindu nationalist who saw the unity of new founded India only and only if the Local Rajas, Nawabs are to be get rid off. Lots of principality states was Annexed. Then it was followed by total socialization of the country. Hindu already has education advantage over Muslims because they were favored by the White Masters over Muslims. When Nehru promoted the Socialism, it benefited the Indian population by increasing the literacy rate. He also made sure that imports are done minimally and promoted "Made In India" by promoting the Tata industries and other companies to built stuff in India and made Indians to buy it. For long a time India had anti-import policies. Other benefits was that Due to Socialism, the Taxes were collected with disciplined and that developed a habit in india to pay Tax.

On other hand, we should thank Nehru for making sure that china becomes our best friend forever....lol

Although, i consider Socialism an inferior system when put against Capitalism. Socialism causes brain drain, it make people dependent. Welfare promotes more welfare but thats a topic for another discussion.

[sobank]

Dont be fooled by the appearance. On the surface we are no longer fuedal society. Land holdings might be smaller but the influence and reign of lords is still the same. I know. I am from one of the region you mention below. I love to say it isnt so but it is.

Fatima47, on 17 April 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Sobank,

Feudalsim proper, with immense landholdings and tenants is not common in Pakistan today as it was in first two decades of the country's history. Large landholdings do not determine feudalism. In Pakistan we still find large landholdings in Sindh or the southern belt of Punjab. Punjab used to be  the heart of feudal tradition, but now estates are a thing of the past(the laws of inheritance take the credit for that with the result that large estates became smaller assets). In pockets of Mianwali and Attock districts, there are still a few large landholdings but in the disctricts of Rawalpindi, Chakwal, Jhelum, Mandi Bahauddin, Gujrat, Wazirabad, Gujranwala, Sheikupura, Lahore, Kasur, Sialkot, Narowal, Faisalabad , there are no big zamin dars. The norm in these districts is middle size land-holdings.

yes lands are small now but to see the feudal society, pick up newspaper and strat going through the crime in rural area. You will see the reality. The lands are smaller but they are still with the same family. And the key word is family.

Quote

Now coming to the politic…feudal influence in politics received a major blow in 70 elections when many famous feudal were defeated at the hands of less known candidates of PPP. Bhutto did try to reverse the process by making the same waderas members of PPP but even then, there was no going back to 1930s and 40s where feudal influence meant political power.  

Elections are win and lost in cities. In villages, its still the same lord winning from same village.

Quote

Today only a few landholders, no matter how big they are, can make it into assemblies without any support of either of the two major parties (PPP and PML-N). If you look at Sindh, the ticket of PPP counts more than being a wadera. In past, Jatoi needed PPP support to win from Nawabshah. Mumtaz Bhutto, who is no small landowner, made it to Sindh Assembly after several defeats in 93. Pir Pagaraa was beaten several times by the PPP candidates. So with the exception of Bhuttos in Larrkana, Nawaz Shareef in NA-95 Lahore, the Lagharis and Mazaris in D.G Khan and Khar in Muzaffargarrh, very few politicos can claim to have safe constituencies. Khar has already been defeated. But then even prior to that, Kharr enjoyed (and still enjoys) influence because of his political standing and not because he was a feudal lord (and even he is not as feudal as Tehmina Durrani portrayed him). There was a time when Sheikh Rasheed (who is not a feudal) was considered amongst those who had safe constituencies but what happened then? Bhuttos win in Larrkana not because they are big feudal (there being other big landowners as well) but because of their surname. So its only in D.G Khan that feudal influence seems to be a decisive factor (though even Laghari’s son was defeated and then became member of N.A on his father’s seat after his death).

So feudalism is, on the whole, not a decisive factor and the diminishing force is always coupled with other factors which make for rural influence and this is where the skills to interact with local bureaucracy, the police, magistracy and the revenue department count.  

Just as every memon, every Chinioti is not captain of industry, every Warraich, every Chattha, every Chadhary is not a feudal lord.

Read your above paragraph. You are telling me that all those feudal lords, win or lose, are still running the country. But if you still dont agree, then please tell me who is running PPP from its inception? who have reigns of PML for past 30 years? Who is going to PPP and PML leader in future. So many questions and I am pretty sure your answer will be two words i.e. sharifs and bhuttos.

In Pakistan the feudal land holding might be on decrease but the feudalism is still there and strong as ever.

[Sanguine]

Guy fawkes, on 17 April 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

No Britons indirectly or directly promoted the Feudalism in Sub-continent to strengthen their power and use them as proxies against opposing powers. They left Feudalism even stronger than it was when they got here. Feudalism and Sufism ties grew stronger under the Brits. Brits knew the ills of Feudalism and how it kept Europe from developing. The true Capital society existed before the British invasion. You would ask how? A true Capitalism thrives and benefits people when it done without Taxation, the society which existed before the British invasion was the best business community because A trader from Sub-continent was free to trade in Persia, Arabia, Ottoman and Central Asian republics. Britons promoted the Feudalism, check all your major political families and see where did they get their lands from. Also check the Pirs and Sajada Nasheens and where did they get the land as a reward to keep the local masses from revolting.

Well, there are social scientists who believe that the pre-colonial India was a stagnant society with little progress taking place and rigid economic and social structure. They believe that had it not been for the positive and modern impact of British colonialism , most of SA would still be backward. There are others who believe that modernizing impact of British colonialism was cruel and the underdevelopment we see in SA today is the result of that colonial impact. I guess these are different ways of reading into, understanding and interpreting history and we all are at privilege to reach our own conclusions (btw I am not supporting British colonialism by any chance).

I disagree with your statement that true capitalism existed before British because before British rule, during the reign of Mughals, there was no concept of private property. The ruling class consisted of the king and some 8000 nobles whose job was to maintain large armies to serve the king on his request. These nobles were either paid salaries in cash or were given vast lands so that they could collect revenue from the peasants and give it to the state.  These jagirdars were transferred after three or four years in order to hinder them from building an entrenched base for themselves.  In contrast to these jagirdars who were sort of government officials rather than feudal lords, there were zamindars who bore close resemblance to feudal lords. These were the influential individuals from villages who were under obligation to collect revenue for state. Despite the fact that these zamindars owned no land, they were supreme at the village level. They could use coercive force to extract revenues and also looked into the social and judicial matters at village level. Here, there was a fusion of economic and political power at the point of production (the structural condition of feudalism).  The king owned all the land and the land was not inherited by peasant’s family or zamindars’. The jagirdars and zamindars did assert authority over assigned tracts of land but this authority was dependant on the favour of the ruler. So saying that people were not taxed prior to British set foot is not right. It was only after decline of the Mughal emperor (after the death of Aurangzeb actually) that these zamindars and jagirdars (who were intermediaries  in times of Mughals) tried to strengthen their claims over lands and increased their hold on the peasants.  So the people had the lands even prior to colonial impact.

  When the British arrived, they introduced three major institutional changes (private property, legal system and efficient government).  But the major impact was that the “fusion of economic and political power (the structural condition for feudalism) was dissolved and was reconstituted in the form if bourgeois landed property under the authority of the colonial state which marked a separation of economic and political power” (as stated by Hamza Alavi in his book).

With Permanent Settlement in Bengal (1793 or 94 perhaps), yes, the peasant was dispossessed of the land which became property of the zamindar but alongside, the coercive powers of the zamindar and his private armies were abolished.  So basically, the multiple claims that had emerged after the decline of Mughals were systemized under British. The zamindars were granted property rights which were stable as long as they ensured collection of revenue. This was the beginning of private property protected by a legal system. In Sindh, the ryotwari system was introduced where state was the landlord and the occupant was tenant. These occupants had heritable and transferable rights of occupancy and security of land was ensured as long as taxes were paid. Yes, the mirs were given large tracts of land for their loyalty to raj and peasants were discouraged but that was only till a certain time.  The property rights of peasant occupants were recognized in 1912 (though a series of laws enforced from 1980 onwards kind of promoted landlordism but we cannot see that in isolation).

So what differentiates this capitalist agrarian economy from pre-capitalist lines is how British introduced the capitalist and bourgeois  concept of private ownership and how it was made alienable and marketable, the iuntrodiction of a legal system which protected owners and the market guaranteeing the protection of bourgeois property and personal rights. I am, for the sake of keeping it simple, not discussing the production patterns (which basically tell us about the kind of economy) in times of British and in that of Mughals.

Quote

Now your country is still ruled by Tawanas, Bhuttos, Noons, Chathas, Khers, Jutois, Awaans, Rajas etc they are got their major land holding for being Loyal to the Raj.

Well, they had already gotten hold of vast tracts of land (prior to British invasion) after the fall of Mughals using land-grabbing tactics. It was only after colonial expansion that we see the structural condition of feudalism getting dissolved.

Quote

But things got even more complicated when Pakistan turned into Oligarch based society aka Baradari system. Check out the bureaucracy for, everything happens without a problem if you know someone. If you are Rich aka the Plutocrat, you are a king, if your Dad was a judge or political leader or some thing in society then you are aristocrat and in this care you are born in royalty and all the doors are open for you all the time.

This is why it is so hard to get even small reform so hard, this is why it is impossible to anything right unless their is a use of absolute force that scares everyone.

Unless and Until Pakistan turns into Meritocracy where decision are taken on the bases of Merit. Nothing will be solved.

the democracy you all love so much is a utopian nonsense and it never existed and it never will in the real world.

Agree with every word you say  and yes we have pockets of feudal-like tendencies but these are the commonalities that exist in most of the underdeveloped countries which had no connection with feudalism in the past. Yes, we still have to develop a socially developed and responsible middle class and culture but the absence of this social group does not imply the presence of feudalism. Feudalsim, in essence, is a purely economic concept and with changes in landholdings and rise of arrhti and tansporters as key economic and political figures in rural area, with inheritance laws dividing the estates into smaller and smaller landholdings, the old power structures based on land have changed noticeably.

[Sanguine]

sobank, on 17 April 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

Dont be fooled by the appearance. On the surface we are no longer fuedal society. Land holdings might be smaller but the influence and reign of lords is still the same. I know. I am from one of the region you mention below. I love to say it isnt so but it is.

Luckily or unluckily I also hail from a village (quite near to your district) so how about looking at the political figures of that particular area? The famous ones like Chaudhary Afzal (Member CEC PMLN-N), Chaudhary Asad, Raja Farrukh etc, do you think they are big landowners? If there is anyone in that belt who could perhaps claim to be a feudal then that was Iqbal Mahdi and even his estate is getting smaller and smaller (an example is how her sister who got married into Pathans took her share and is now a prospective PTI candidate from that area) as well as shifting in hands of other “families”.

Quote

yes lands are small now but to see the feudal society, pick up newspaper and strat going through the crime in rural area. You will see the reality. The lands are smaller but they are still with the same family. And the key word is family.

No doubt, crimes in rural area do occur frequently but the grave cases are usually the ones occurring in southern belt of Punjab or Sindh. Yes, exploitation of poor class by large landowners still exists but exploitation, even the most brutal one, continues to exist in economies and societies which no one would consider feudal. The peasants in Latin America have had to suffer oppression for many decades by the military, landowners and even by multinational corporations. Exploitation exists in all societies and is not necessarily a trait of feudalism alone. The fact that in Pakistan the situation of law and order as well as justice is pathetic where the poor and not-so-poor have recourse neither to justice or protection, cannot be reduced to feudalism. These are the characteristics of numerous under-developed societies as well as of some highly developed capitalist societies that have no history of anything akin to feudalism. These are manifestations of all class societies with varying degree of scale.

Quote

Elections are win and lost in cities. In villages, its still the same lord winning from same village.

Throughout these years I myself believed the same but now rationality tells me that it was a superficial view of things. There is a book written by Andrew Wilder, if you read it you would come to know the reasons for which people in Punjab elected their candidates and they actually made rational, sensible and perhaps opportunistic choices rather than simply vote for someone on the basis of relationship. The village people don’t  really care who owns how many lands, at the end of day they do look for someone who could be present in difficult times and get them out of thana, kachehri k chakker.  They would get 200 rupees from you, have their lunch/ dinner from you and still at the end of day, cast their vote to someone else they find more suitable and like I said in one of my posts, the ticket of one of the two major parties counts far more than being a feudal.

Quote

Read your above paragraph. You are telling me that all those feudal lords, win or lose, are still running the country. But if you still dont agree, then please tell me who is running PPP from its inception? who have reigns of PML for past 30 years? Who is going to PPP and PML leader in future. So many questions and I am pretty sure your answer will be two words i.e. sharifs and bhuttos.

In Pakistan the feudal land holding might be on decrease but the feudalism is still there and strong as ever.

Reading this paragraph, I get the feeler that like most of us, you have a problem with the families dominating politics. Lets not forget that this is a common practice in most underdeveloped countries , particularly in South Asia (for example India), where there has been a family hold in the past, but even today is still not uncommon in the West; the Kennedys, now the Bush family, the Clintons. Yes, in developed societies merit matters far more than connections and linage, one cannot put everything down to merit alone. Cronyism is not a symptom of poor, underdeveloped, feudal societies alone.

[sobank]

Fatima I understand what you are saying. but problem is that I also understand the core of of our politics too.

To begin with, as i stated earlier on, the land holdings might not be there, but the attitude is still there. The landlords might be thing of the past but fedualism is not. And you cannot compare the kennedys and bush to bhutto and other families of Pakistan. No bush or kennedy has ever declared the future runner for president chair. In Pakistan, you already have declared the future PM of Pakistan. Every single one of poster here knows it very well that unless things go horrifically bad against Bhutto family (which means with Allah's blessing someone assasinates bilawal, which seems to be norm of bhutto family), the faggot is going to be our PM.

And thats that. There is no book and drawing room discussion that can change the fact. wrap it up in any terminology or theory, and still, your next contendars are Hamza sharief and bilawal zardari bhutto.

I dont know where are u from, but around jhelum area, there were never large land holders. And around this districts, feudalism comes from families. Call it  Co-op feudalism if you will And having very good political insight (well atleast 15 years ago), its the same old same old every where. People vote their family, or area "leader". And yes there is not much of by force voting goes on and yet same old people win. But then again oppresion by choice doesnt make it freedom.

Now I think we pretty much understand each other point of view. We should rather define feudalism first. Cause I have feeling that I am talking about the state of mind and "tareekah vardaat" of these people while you are talking more about the book definition of feudalism.

[Sanguine]

Sobank,


There is no single agreed upon definition of feudalism. A number of historians and scholars have examined the conditions mainly in Europe before Industrial Revolution and have identified certain features that define feudalism. Hamza Alavi has explained the five criteria that constitute feudalism as follows:

i) Unfree labour rendered not necessarily in the form of labour services but taking a variety of possible forms. That would be contrasted with free labour in CMP [capitalist mode of production], in a double sense (a) in that it has been separated from (or "freed") from possession of means of production (land) and (b) that it is free from feudal obligations to serve a lord; the direct producer is now fre to sell this labour power or starve.

ii) Extra-economic coercion in the extraction of the surplus from the direct producer, as against economic coercion as the basis of exploitation in CMP.

iii) A fusion of economic and political power at the point of production and localized structure of power, as against separation of economic (class) power and political (state) power within the framework of bourgeois state in CMP. The power of the exploiting class, the bourgeois, over the exploited class is then exercised indirectly,  through the state apparatus and subject to the rule of (bourgeois) law, and not arbitrarily and directly as in FMP [feudal mode of production].

iv) Self-sufficient ('subsistence') economy of the village (or the manor), commodity production being secondary for the direct producer, subject to the condition that he produces also a surplus that is appropriated by the exploiting class of which a significant proportion may enter into circulation as commodities. That contrasts with generalized commodity production in CMP where (a) production is primarily of commodities, i.e to be sold for the value to be realized on the market and (b) labour power itself is a commodity.

v) Simple reproduction where the surplus is largely consumed by the exploiting class which acquires it, instead of being accumulated, so that the economy and society merely reproduce themselves on the existing level of productive resource and technology, whereas in CMP we have expanded reproduction of capital, where the surplus is primarily deployed towards capital accumulation (though not without supporting rising consumption levels of the exploiting classes) and consequent expansion of the forces of production and technological advance.”

Refernce: Alavi, Hamza, 'India:Transition to Colonial Capitalsim', in Alavi, Hamza, et-al., Capitalism and Colonial Production, Croom Helm, London, 1982, p. 29.

For manyof us, the popular perception is that feudalism still exists in the guise of chaudhary, wadera etc and Pakistan is still a feudal country. I know most people are not a bit concerned with the economic arguments  (and they might even be convinced if they spend some time reading and understanding them) but those who do agree with the economic and structural arguments, say that there is a feudal mind-set in Pakistan (what you called tareeqah wardaat perhaps). The mind-set and attitude is manifest in many ways e.g that most Pakistanis are disrespectful of rule and regulations and violate the laws openly; they misuse their positions of authority; public servants are masters rather than paid employees of the state; dependant on tax-payers’ money; women are kept illiterate, inferior to men and are mistreated; Pakistani society has a darbar kind of culture where ostentatiousness is the norm; corruption from thana kachehry to the highest publict offices is an accepted practice; there is serious law and order problem at the local level caused by propertied and influential people having private jails; that there are large land owning families; instead of merit, nepotism and bribes determine access to public sector employment market; people are irrational, hold superstitious and outdated beliefs and the list goes on. No doubt, all these practices are prevalent in Pakistan but my question is, are these a manifestation of feudalism?

I have already said in one of my posts and I reiterate that feudalism is primarily an economic system (mode of production, social formation) where the agricultural economy dominates completely, where each unit consumes much of what it produces with little exchang between other areas. If we consider this definition, then Pakistan is clearly not a feudal country. Size of landholdings never determines feudalism for there are farmers and corporate firms that own thousands of acres of land in many countries but we do not call them feudal because of the advanced capitalist lines on which they are run. So, ownership is not relevant to argument of feudalism.

Yes, there are waderas and haris in remote parts of Sindh, Baluchistan and there is exploitative relationship (which does fulfill some of the criteria of feudalism) but that does not mean feudalism is prevalent in Pakistan, even though it is a manifestation of pockets of feudalism. A country or an economy is feudal when the production relations specific to feudalism are dominant , ubiquitous or at least pervasive in most parts if not all, only then we can say that feudalism existed in that particular economy/ society.

I have already explained the exploitation part in one of my posts but I say it again that the most horrid kind of exploitation continues to exist in societies which no one would consider feudal (for example how peasants of Latin America have had to suffer oppression by military, corporate frms etc). The pathetic situation of law and order is a trait shared by several underdeveloped as well as developed capitalist countries having no connections with feudalism.

Nepotism and lack of merit are serious issues but are they manifestations of feudalism alone? All societies have their own version of the old-boy-club of Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard etc, allowing certain privileges which accrue on the basis of not merit alone. Yes, they are more common in underdeveloped societies where kin, tribe, baradri etc also matter but are quite common in all societies including Japnese, US and British.

Often vested interests or lobbies are conceived (or misconceived) as feudal interests but do such lobbies and vested interests exist in Pakistani society alone? They exist in all societies, at times they are sophisticated and at times rather crude. Mafias and cartels exist in most advanced societies but only in Pakistan, we see them as manifestation of feudalism. Many of these interst groups are a response to modern politics and the way a state functions and fails to live upto its very aspirations. In former Soviet Union post-socialism, with the breakdown of the state, a new society based on patronage and personalism has arisen and the state has become personalized, with patron-client relations now the new social arrangement in much of the former socialist world. The mafia-like elites and powerful groups who determine interests have been mushrooming, particularly at the local level. Yet, most of us do not call these symptoms a sign of feudalism.

Economic changes in structure are also manifested in where people live. As per 1951 census less than 20 percent of West Pakistani lived urban areas, today estimates suggest that more than 40 percent live in cities and towns. This shift has major repercussions. In context of Pakistan, perhaps one of the most important political factor over the last few decades has been the process and extent of urbanization and the emergence of a middle class. Feudalism is no longer an economically viable and feasible project and many a “feudal lord” has had to become capitalists. The huge change in economic, social and political power, from the agriculturist (so-called feudal), lobby, towards an urban and rural middle class is also one of the key indicators that highlights extraordinary structural change in Pakistan in six decades.

What I am trying to say is that while there are pockets of feudal-like tendencies, feudalism as a dominating and organizing form of social and economic structure is no longer present. Like I said, the absence of a socially responsible middle class and culture does not imply the presence of feudalism. So the traits we generally consider as expressions of feudalism are common, in varying degree, across societies and cultures. The so-called feudal mind-sets or attitudes exist even in various uncontrovertially non-feudal societies. When people believe that Pakistan is feudal or that so-and –so is a feudal or that a particular attitude is feudal, they reduce the understanding and explanation to everything being feudal. They sit back and say that this happens on account of feudalism (implying that nothing can be done unless the feudalism is done away with). But if we argue that there is no feudalism, we are forced to analyze the institutions and behaviour in a more serious manner and to examine the real causes of that behavior. Blaming everything on feudalism takes the easy, and in thise case, incorrect path.

[Sanguine]

I edited my last post and making a new one for the purpose of bumping it (otherwise those who are responding might have not known perhaps).

[sobank]

When people of Pakistan (and actually educated ones) are talking about feudalism, they are not talking about the economic definition of feudalism. You are raising the point now but for years I have talked about non existance of the sindhi feudalism in punjab. As a joke,from where i come from, we often say every single one of us is a landlord. Take panga with someone and some general, judge, SP, politician, or just plain thug will be knocking on your door. (knowing the area, you should know it better).

So yes, you wont find much argument from me in economical sense but when it comes to the attitude, then we have something. But then again, no one can win an argument cause no matter what any one will say, if you gonna dig around the world in different cultures for the same symptom, you will have an example. So it is a lost cause.

You gonna have to cut down your population sample. You simply cannt have examples from US and Uganda in the same argument. It makes the comparison not only impossible but is also a logically flawed.

[sobank]

And most important of all........................................ go do your exam. why  you are wasting your time here. I promise that we still be around after your exam  

Edited by sobank, 20 April 2012 - 01:07 AM.

[platinum786]

Pakistan is 100% percent a fuedal country. There are parts which are more fuedal than others, but overall the largest influential element in Pakistan is the fuedal one. There are people in Sindh and Southern Punjab who are bonded labour, they may as well have chains in their feet. The powers of the tribals in Balouchistan is the same, the people under them are slaves to them, they are kept down, used and abused. I'm not aware if that is really the case in KP. In Northern Punjab, the federal territories, AJK, feudalism is not on the same level, but the fuedal mindset is still there. People still have the same underlying mentality. Urban Pakistan is the only place somewhat free of feudalism.

[Felicius]

Even professionals in Pakistan (Doctors, businessmen, pilots, etc) have small land holdings, about 100-200 acres here and there, and they promote the tax free agriculture. These half professionals will always prefer a parliament full of feudals; few of my friends and myself being one (a feudal).

Then you have the big ones, Kashkheli, Mengals, Nizamanis, etc, all having more than 1000 acres of agricultural land. The land reforms were one person holding not more than 750 acres, hence larger the family larger the land holding. Father, mother, 3 sons, 2 daughters will own 3750 acres. Then second wife and more sons come in to and equation. Nothing was really taken away from them (as in the case of India).

An acquaintance of mine has been winning from his constituency since the last 20 years, regardless of who is in power, no one can replace them, literally.

[Sanguine]

sobank, on 20 April 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

When people of Pakistan (and actually educated ones) are talking about feudalism, they are not talking about the economic definition of feudalism. You are raising the point now but for years I have talked about non existance of the sindhi feudalism in punjab. As a joke,from where i come from, we often say every single one of us is a landlord. Take panga with someone and some general, judge, SP, politician, or just plain thug will be knocking on your door. (knowing the area, you should know it better).

So yes, you wont find much argument from me in economical sense but when it comes to the attitude, then we have something. But then again, no one can win an argument cause no matter what any one will say, if you gonna dig around the world in different cultures for the same symptom, you will have an example. So it is a lost cause.

You gonna have to cut down your population sample. You simply cannt have examples from US and Uganda in the same argument. It makes the comparison not only impossible but is also a logically flawed.

I know about popular perception of feudalism thats why I said that these are the traits shared by many developed and underdeveloped societies and are not necessarily manifestation of feudalism. And you need to see the context  to see if we could quote US and Uganda in the same argument but I do agree that no one can win (and winning from you!!! I dont daydream, )

PS: My exams are to be held next year and the ones on head never worry me.

Shehz, on 20 April 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Even professionals in Pakistan (Doctors, businessmen, pilots, etc) have small land holdings, about 100-200 acres here and there, and they promote the tax free agriculture. These half professionals will always prefer a parliament full of feudals; few of my friends and myself being one (a feudal).

Then you have the big ones, Kashkheli, Mengals, Nizamanis, etc, all having more than 1000 acres of agricultural land. The land reforms were one person holding not more than 750 acres, hence larger the family larger the land holding. Father, mother, 3 sons, 2 daughters will own 3750 acres. Then second wife and more sons come in to and equation. Nothing was really taken away from them (as in the case of India).

An acquaintance of mine has been winning from his constituency since the last 20 years, regardless of who is in power, no one can replace them, literally.

More than the improper land reforms, our inheritance laws take credit for dividing estates into smaller landholdings.

As far as India is concerned, i think the rule of primogeniture still applies there, no?

Your acquaint's constituency is in Sindh or Punjab? I have already explained how people having safe constituencies could not make it to Assemblies and I think if Lagharis can suffer defeat then perhaps even Bhuttos and everyone else can. On the other hand, we must not forget about the mentality of village people who cast their votes. I mean why on earth would poor, illiterate people be concerned about economy, WOT and everything when their lives revolve around food, lil bit of money and thana kachehri? So definitely they would want anyone with some influence who could get them out in tough times. So if you guys call it feudalism, let it be but then its not the only enemy and still a diminishing force unless backed by police, magistracy and revenue departments.

[Felicius]

Sindh, however, Punjab's feudalism is not any different.
Leghari and Zardari had a bone to pick, he was made to loose. On the other hand, Khar made Murtaza win while BB wanted her brother to loose.

[Sanguine]

Does feudalism exist in Sindh?

I HAD an opportunity of attending a conference titled ‘Sharing land rights and social protection: consultation with political parties’ organised by the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Rights (PILER) as a representative of the PML (N).

The participants of the conference included political leaders representing the entire political divide in Sindh including the MQM, Jamat-i-Islami, the PML (F), Jeay Sindh, the PTI and the PPP.

The popular refrain during the conference was the need for ‘land reforms’ and the evils of ‘feudalism’. Both these terms were done to death without attempting to understand either their meaning or the significance of any purported action.

Land reforms have wrongly been understood as an exercise of expropriating and redistributing agricultural land when, in fact, it is an advocacy of thorough reforms of the agrarian economy which must, at its core, address issues related to agricultural productivity along with those related to the pattern of land ownership, tenancy arrangements and labour regulations.

Unfortunately, the researchers of PILER placed their data in the hands of professional ‘leftists’ and partisan political interests.

On the basis of those statistics, one ‘expert’ was able to come to the conclusion that if all agricultural lands were expropriated from their present owners and redistributed, each landless hari would come to own less than one acre of land which he deemed sufficient for the hari’s immediate food needs.

He was unmindful of the fact that such fragmentation will create hordes of subsistence farmers when the need of the day is to engage in commercial agriculture.
Commercial agriculture can utilise technology for enhancing agricultural production and productivity and reverting to subsistence farming will be a hugely retrogressive step.

We need to produce a surplus not only for the food needs of the urban population, which now probably stands at about half the population of Sindh, but also for feeding industries such as textiles, sugar, edible oils, etc., and for exports which are dependent largely on agricultural production.

One cannot possibly disagree with the highly laudable aim of ameliorating the lot of the poor, disenfranchised and long suffering haris of Sindh. But that cannot be done by further impoverishing the rural economy. It would be akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Let us also address the bogey of ‘feudalism’ in Sindh which has continued to be raised mainly, and curiously, by urban interests.

Let me state categorically that feudalism as a system of organising production and defining production relations does not now exist in Sindh nor has it existed in the recent past.

The so-called feudal lords are dysfunctional and parasitical elite whose main source of income is not related to agricultural production. Theirs are the wages of corruption and in this heinous crime against humanity they are aided and abetted by urban interests.

The so-called ‘feudals’ are in fact a comprador class and are in no small measure beholden to the urban interests who probably own three fourths of the entire wealth of Sindh.

Ironically, a necessary requirement of feudalism as a system is that the ‘serf’ be tied to the land. That is precisely what the urban interests require their ‘compradors’ to manage. Subsistence farming will further ensure that the hari is tied to his land or else hordes of grossly underemployed and unemployed Sindhis will descend like locust on the urban centres. That would be at counter purposes to both the interests of the urban and rural elite.

The economic division of Sindh has long been a reality and its maintenance is a continuing ‘work in progress’. But the economic division is constantly threatened by the possibility of mass migration of Sindhis to the major urban centres of Sindh. In Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, migrations from the hinterland to the urban centres within the province would raise no eyebrows. This cannot be permitted in Sindh precisely because ethnic and linguistic divisions also define rural and urban divisions.

The need for a political division of Sindh is now being felt most acutely by the urban interests because of the decidedly changed mood of Sindhis. The Trojan horse of the PPP stands exposed and hence such frantic activities.

DR MUZAFFAR A. ISANI
Karachi

http://dawn.com/2012...exist-in-sindh/