Peasants are in revolt in Pakistan:
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Mohammad Shehzad
OKARA,
Pakistan: Travelling from Lahore to Multan by GT Road or train,
one passes through the green farms sprawling in three districts
of Punjab—Okara, Sahiwal and Khanewal. One, however, cannot
imagine from the roadside that the officials of the state agencies
have turned the green fields into “killing fields”.
Though
the provincial government owns the land, the farms, cultivated
by tenants for decades, are operated by different government agencies,
including the military, live stock department and Punjab Seed
Corporation. These agencies’ plan to change the tenure arrangement
(tenancy) to a contract system sparked a tenant uprising that
has now become a resistance movement in Pakistan.
Clashes
between the state forces and tenants have claimed a number of
poor farmers’ lives so far. Hundreds of tenants, including
women, have been booked under various charges and arrested by
local authorities. State repression against tenants, most of them
living below poverty line, has reached unprecedented heights.
The state is employing war-like tactics against its own citizenry
and Okara gives a look of another Palestine!
These
are the areas where “devolution of power” or the rhetoric
about “proprietary rights for land-less farmers sound hollow.
It is a tale of the government tenants facing the wrath of corrupt,
arrogant, vindictive state-functionaries with a feudal-cum-colonial
mindset.
Urban-based
civil society organizations, especially those working for the
welfare of rural population and “empowerment of the poorest
of the poor”, media, political parties, and human rights
activists know little or are indifferent to the plight of men,
women and children in serfdom of a `feudal’ state.
General
Parvez Musharraf’s two ministers, Colonel S. K. Tressler
and Shaheen Attiqur Rahman including Punjab’s Governor Lt.
General Khalid Maqbool had promised the peasants that if they
supported Musharraf in April 30 referendum, they will be given
the land ownership. The peasants did support Musharraf but the
promise was never kept.
The
matter is the question of life and death of the poor peasants.
The situation has sent a wave of terror and shock in the country
and abroad. It perturbed the renowned nuclear scientist and peace
activist Dr Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy so much that he along with
his daughter Aasha Hoodbhoy (a social scientist in making) and
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar, Advocacy Coordinator at the Sustainable Development
Policy Institute (SDPI) rushed to Okara to observe the situation
on ground.
Dr
Hoodbhoy sat down with Mohammad Shehzad of South Asia
Tribune later and shared with him what he saw in
Okara identifying the reasons and solutions to such a grim situation.
Excerpts:
Q:
General elections have been sanctioned by the military in October.
There is a sizeable body of opinion that General Musharraf’s
29 amendments to the Constitution have made these a sham. Do you
agree, or do you instead see elections as a step forward for democracy
in Pakistan?
A:
Those amendments lack legitimacy but I’d much rather have
elections than not. Whenever people are given a choice and asked
to exercise their judgement, it is a step towards their empowerment.
To be able to choose our leaders at the national level is important,
but it’s still more important for an elected leadership
to exist at the local level. Else they become the victims of systematic
abuse and exploitation. My visit to Okara city and its vicinity
last week left me convinced of that.
Q:
What took you to Okara?
A:
As you know, there’s a state of high tension over land issues
between local peasants – numbering nearly one million –
and the government. Many peasants have reportedly been killed,
hundreds jailed without trial. Various government agencies –
the Army Welfare Trust, Punjab Seed Corporation, and the Livestock
Department – claim rights over some 70,000 acres of A-grade
agricultural land. These agencies want to change the traditional
tenancy (batai) system and institute a contract system instead.
On the other hand, for two years these peasants have been demanding
ownership to the land, arguing that they have tilled it for many
generations. They feel that the new system is designed to lead
to their eventual eviction under some pretext, such as being declared
anti-state or failing to pay arrears. Much violence was reported
in the national press, and widely broadcast over the internet.
I wanted to see things for myself and make my own judgement.
Q:
Who went with you? What did you see?
A:
On the morning of 6 September my daughter and I went to several
chaks (villages) around Okara. We began by heading towards Chak#45.
On route we saw several groups of police deployed at crossings,
and along the roadsides and canals. Rangers, armed with automatic
weapons and light machine guns, were usually just behind the police.
We saw local people being stopped at the various checkpoints but
we were allowed to reach the village unhindered. It was a fairly
typical village – mud covered huts, open drains, bare-footed
children, and scrawny chickens – visible signs of poverty.
We were directed by armed personnel to the village mosque. Just
outside, under a big and shady tree, the Rangers had set up their
headquarters for the day. There were about a hundred villagers
standing in front of the soldiers, who sat around a small table
with a pile of contract documents. The head of the Rangers force,
Major Tahir, asked me my purpose for the visit. I explained that
we had come from Islamabad to understand the situation.
Q:
What was his attitude towards you?
A:
Very polite and courteous. He asked us to sit down, and ordered
refreshments for us. He spoke in English – this was to establish
his credentials, and ours. People had been misled by the propaganda
in the press, he said, and so he would be glad to explain the
benefits of the new system. Then he switched over to Urdu, and
gave a speech for 10 minutes. Under the new system, he declared,
the villagers could contract the land for less than 50% of the
market rate, and the government would build for them a school,
hospital, and mosque. Pointing to the sheaf of signed papers on
the desk, he said that the villagers had now understood these
facts and most had signed the new contract. I saw a sea of expressionless
faces all around me. So, when the Major finished, I asked the
villagers whether they had voluntarily signed – or, rather,
put their thumbprints – on the contract document.
Q:
And what was their reply?
A:
With one voice they said that they had signed under duress. Then
a babble of voices broke out, each detailing the threats and beatings
they had received. So I then addressed the Major and asked how
his claim was to be reconciled with what I was hearing. He replied
that there 
were
some mischief mongers in this crowd, but others had signed willingly.
Thereupon I asked the crowd if there was anyone there who had
signed willingly. Again, a negative followed, with yet another
outpouring of tales of woe. After another half-hour we got up
to go. A crowd followed us to our car. An old peasant woman hobbled
up to me, uncovered her head, and showed me a still bleeding wound
that was turning septic. She pointed to the soldiers and said
they had beaten her without respite. Others showed me bruises
and marks on their bodies. The Major was unmoved – he said
these were old wounds, that no force had been used by the Rangers.
Q:
Isn’t it odd that these simple folk should have spoken up
in the presence of armed Rangers? Were they not afraid?
A:
They are terrified, but also desperate. Rightly or wrongly, they
see this as a life and death struggle. They have no political
agenda – just simple, physical, survival. For the peasant,
land is livelihood. They see eviction down the line. But let me
continue with our journey. We then went to another village, Chak#10,
where we were shown the fresh grave of a 20-year old man, Salman
Masih, who the villagers claim was tortured to death by the Rangers.
Then, as we were about to leave for Islamabad, some villagers
came running to me and told us that a milkman and a farm labourer
from Chak#9 had been picked up by the police. They pleaded us
to save them. After considerable effort, we located these two
men, who were in police custody. They were shivering with fear.
I tried to secure their release but failed – I was told
that they had been put into custody by the Rangers. That’s
when I decided that we should immediately go to Lahore, about
100 miles away, and meet with Major General Husain Mehdi, Director
General of the Rangers.
Q:
Wasn’t that a long shot? It’s not easy to see any
one that high up surely!
A: General Mehdi was very gracious. He had left his office in
the Rangers headquarters earlier in the day and it was dark by
the time we found his impressive residence on The Mall. Nevertheless,
after I introduced myself and the purpose of my visit, he received
us very cordially, offered chocolate cake and tea, and listened
patiently as I told him of our experiences. I suspect that I tested
his tolerance at times, especially when I told him about the beatings
I had seen. He promised to have the two men in the Rangers custody
released. However he insisted that we had an incorrect perspective,
no violence had ever been used, Salman Masih had been killed by
his own people to make the Rangers look bad, and that the peasants
were willingly signing the contract documents. He accused the
peasant leadership of swindling 70 million rupees, and said that
the trouble-makers were NGOs and Indian agents. General Mehdi
was completely forthright in his reply when I suggested that the
issue of land ownership should be left for the courts to decide
and not the Rangers. It is the Army’s government, he said,
and the government was the law. Therefore, by definition, it was
not possible for the Rangers to do anything illegal.
Q:
Are any of the political parties taking up the cause of the Okara
peasants? If not, why not?
A:
I have not followed the press on this, but my impression is that
the political parties have given some vague statements in support
of the peasants. But basically they are not interested because
they don’t see much political capital to be made from the
situation. It shows their lack of interest in people’s welfare.
I am told that the district Nazims, who were elected by the peasants,
have resigned.
Q:
Dr. Hoodbhoy, you gained a lot of enemies among your colleagues
when you had successfully opposed the Quaid-e-Azam University
Housing Scheme, wherein the university’s land would have
been made the private property of the teachers for a nominal sum.
How then can you advocate ownership rights for the peasants of
Okara? Is it not a violation of the principle that public land
should not be turned over into private hands?
A:
In 1996 what Dr Nayyar and I had opposed was the conversion of
Quaid-e-Azam university land into private property, to be handed
over to university teachers and Benazir Bhutto’s political
cronies. This would have quickly destroyed our university. Eventually
land outside of the university campus was given to teachers and
all is fine now. In my opinion poor peasants who have tilled the
land for generations are far more deserving of land than we university
teachers, not to speak of officers of the armed forces whose land
holdings are considerable. One can make a strong case for land
ownership by peasants. Countries like India, for example, give
peasants ownership rights after 12-14 years of land occupancy.
But, of course, one could argue the other way too – all
state land obviously should not be privatised. So I don’t
have a definite position on this issue. The point, however, is
that land ownership issues should be decided by the courts through
a process that gives a proper hearing to both sides. The Rangers,
or the Army, do not have the moral or legal authority to decide
upon such issues. The use of force is not legitimate in these
circumstances. That is why we need strong democratic institutions
capable of withstanding pressures from powerful groups such as
the Army.
Q:
Given the size of peasant movement and the importance it has for
the country, don’t you think that a debate on TV at this
occasion will be helpful on this issue?
A:
Absolutely! But it will need a miracle to persuade Pakistan TV.
Unfortunately, while the print media in Pakistan is reasonably
fair and open, television is very strongly constrained. This is
an enormous handicap for establishing democracy because valid
information is vital for making sensible decisions. But on TV
all we get is propaganda. Every government – civil or military
– has used television for its narrow self-interests rather
than a means of moving society forward.
Q:
Is this why democracy has failed to take roots in Pakistan?
A:
It is a contributing factor, but there are much deeper failings.
We saw the kleptomania of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. When
they were removed from power, the people of this country did not
move a finger to resist the army’s illegal and unconstitutional
move. Everyone was so fed up of thieves. But more importantly,
it has yet to be realized that democracy is not just about electing
rulers. Democracy is predicated upon pluralism and the idea that
all citizens should have equal rights. For democracy to succeed
in Pakistan it will be necessary to accept that ours is a multicultural
society with peoples of different cultures and faiths, all of
whom merit equal respect. We cannot expect democracy within a
legal system that dejure and de-facto discriminates between citizens.
Tragically, 55 years after partition there is still an enormous
amount of confusion about democracy, what it means, and even whether
we should have it at all. This confusion is similar to that which
exists in most Islamic countries.
Q:
But the religious parties are participating in the forthcoming
elections. So why are you suggesting that there is confusion?
A:
Twenty years ago at the time of General Zia-ul-Haq these very
parties, and some of the same leaders, had insisted that democracy
was incompatible with Islam. Today, the possibility of acquiring
some amount of political power through elections has made them
change their opinions. Nevertheless, they are hopelessly divided
and confused about what Islam has to say about democracy in practical
terms. Slogans like “Allah’s Law on Allah’s
Earth”, or that the Quran be declared the constitution of
Pakistan, or demanding a revival of the caliphate, is strong rhetoric
but means little else. It leaves open all the fundamental questions
– who shall govern and how, what shall be political and
economic rights of citizens, and so forth.
Q:
Would you say then that the religious factor makes Pakistan a
non-democracy?
A:
I would not be so categorical. Although there is no model democracy
anywhere in the Muslim world today, there are other countries
– Tunisia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia are some
examples – where democracy works a lot better than in Pakistan.
The main reason for this is that these countries do not perceive
themselves as in a state of perpetual war. However our conflict
with India then creates the need for a very large standing military.
This has enormous consequences for the nature of the state in
Pakistan. It is easy to see that throughout Pakistan’s history,
whether it has been a period of “democracy” or otherwise,
the military has wielded near absolute power. Kashmir, Afghanistan,
nuclear policy, defence budgets – civilian governments have
been irrelevant when it comes to making major decisions on such
matters. This is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of a
representative democracy.
Q:
To conclude: what is your prognosis for the future of democracy
in Pakistan?
A: The forthcoming elections will, at best, be only a very small
step forward. Real power will remain concentrated with the Army.
Nevertheless, the elections will allow new faces to emerge on
the political landscape and this is a good thing. It is hard to
say what the political landscape will look like 10 years later.
However, if democracy is to ever exist in spirit then we will
have to move away from the notion of being a nation under siege.
We will have to move towards a rational and equitable sharing
of power and resources, educate people into pluralism and tolerance,
and prevent the poor – like those of Okara – from
being crushed.
Email Story | 
Discuss Story
