Comparing Oligarchies of India and Pakistan

India is the world's third biggest and the fastest rising oligarchy with 17.2% of its GDP amassed by its 55 billionaires. India's system of governance has some of the worst of features of democracy and oligarchy in which the democratically elected politicians are bought off by the richest Indians, and both groups further enrich themselves at the expense of the vast majority of ordinary Indians. The biggest Indian oligarchs today are mainly industrialists like Ambanis, Adanis, Birlas, Mittals, Premjis and Tatas.



Like India, Pakistan is an oligarchy as well. But it is dominated by the feudal rather than the industrial elite. These oligarchs dominate Pakistan's legislature. Vast majority of them come from rural landowning and tribal backgrounds. Well-known names include the Bhuttos and Khuhros of Larkana, the Chaudhrys of Gujarat, Tiwanas of Sargodha, Daulatanas of Vehari, the Jatois and Qazi Fazlullah family of Sindh, the Gilanis, Qureshis and Gardezis of Multan, the Nawabs of Qasur, the Mamdots of Ferozpur/Lahore, Ghaffar Khan-Wali Khan family of Charsadda and various Baloch tribal chieftains like Bugtis, Jamalis, Legharis, and Mengals. The power of these political families is based on their heredity, ownership of vast tracts of land and a monopoly over violence – the ability to control, resist and inflict violence.

Pakistan, too, has an industrial elite. Its biggest names include Manshas (Nishat Group), Syed Maratib Ali and Babar Ali (Packages) Saigols, Hashwanis, Adamjees, Dawoods, Dadabhoys, Habibs, Monnoos, Lakhanis and others. But their collective power pales in comparison with the power of the big feudal families. The only possible exception to this rule are the Sharif brothers who own the Ittefaq Group of Industries and also lead Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group), one of the two largest political parties. But the Sharifs too rely on political support from several feudal families who are quick to change loyalties.

The origins of the differences between Indian and Pakistan oligarchies can be found in some of the earliest decisions by the founding fathers of the two nations. India's first prime minster dismantled the feudal system almost immediately after independence. But Nehru not only left the industrialists like Birla and Tata alone, his policies protected them from foreign competition by imposing heavy tariff barriers on imports. In Pakistan, there was no serious land reform, nor was any real protection given to domestic industries from foreign competition.

Oligarchy is the antithesis of democracy. However, it's important to understand the differences between feudal and industrial oligarchies, and their effects on nations as observed in South Asia.

Industrial oligarchs of India have accelerated economic growth, created a large number of middle class jobs, increased India's exports significantly and paid higher taxes to the tune of 17% of GDP. This has created a trickle-down effect in terms of increased public spending on education, health care and various social programs to fight poverty. Unfortunately, the tax collection in Pakistan's feudal oligarchy remains dismally low at less than 10% of GDP, and the lack of revenue makes its extremely difficult for Pakistani state to spend more on basic human development and poverty reduction programs.



As to the future, the hope for Pakistan is that the feudal hold on power will eventually weaken as the nation sustains its rapid pace of urbanization. Pakistan has and continues to urbanize at a faster pace than India. From 1975-1995, Pakistan grew 10% from 25% to 35% urbanized, while India grew 6% from 20% to 26%. From 1995-2025, the UN forecast says Pakistan urbanizing from 35% to 60%, while India's forecast is 26% to 45%. For this year, a little over 40% of Pakistan's population lives in the cities. The political power shift from rural to urban areas may eventually produce a more industry-friendly government in the future. Such a government can be expected to help increase the tax base significantly, permitting greater spending on education and health care, and reduced dependence on foreign aid.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

India: World's Largest Oligarchy

Who Owns Pakistan?

Tax Evasion Fosters Aid Dependence

Urbanization in Pakistan Highest in South Asia

India's 2G Scandal

Bloody Revolution in India?

Is There a Threat of Oligarchy in India?

Political Patronage in Pakistan

The Richest Pakistanis

India at Davos 2011: Story of Corruption and Governance Deficit

Challenges to Indian Democracy

India After 63 Years of Independence

Introspection of Pakistan's Creation

Sixty-plus years after the end of the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent, a number of authors, historians and scholars are now speaking or writing about the circumstances of India's partition, and the reasons for the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Several of them, including Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal and former Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh have offered their varying perspectives on the subject. Ayesha Jalal has called the creation of Pakistan a "mistake" and Jinnah a "great lawyer with feet of clay". Contrary to popular perception, Singh argues in his recent book "Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence", it was not Jinnah but Nehru's "highly centralized polity" that led to the Partition of India.

Ayesha Jalal has argued that the partition of India -- the event that created Pakistan -- was an accident, a huge miscalculation. Further, she has insisted that Jinnah never wanted a separate Muslim state; he was only using the threat of independence as a political bargaining chip to strengthen the voice of the Muslim minority in the soon-to-be sovereign India, a view shared by Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah and partition. Unlike Jalal, however, Singh lauds Jinnah as a "great Indian" and blames Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel for the partition. In his book "India Wins Freedom", Maulana Azad also singled out Patel as "the real flag bearer" of partition.

And now, veteran Pakistani writer Afzal Tauseef, who has been honored by Pakistan with "Pride of Performance" award for her service to the nation, has added her voice in a recent interview with Newsline. In her provocative style, she argues that Pakistan was created to preserve the interests of the big landowners in Punjab and Sind, and to serve the interests of the landowning class that would have been threatened by Nehru's insistence on land reform. Tauseef explains in the following words: "I personally think that if Nehru had not included land reforms in his program, Pakistan would never have been created. The country was made so that the jagirdari system could remain intact. The jagirdars, who were all protégées of the British, knew that if left in the Congress fold, they would be wiped out since at that time Marxist thought was moving into the subcontinent. The Muslim League was a product of the British and the land-owning Nawabs. On the other side was America, who wanted something in return for the money it had given to the British during the war. They wanted an area where a new imperialism could be let loose. And this is what continues to this day. Now we are paying for it dearly."

The fact that the quest for Pakistan by the Muslim League won the crucial support of the powerful Unionist Party in Punjab, representing the interests of the feudal Punjabi zamindars and jagirdars, lends support to Tauseef's contention that "the country was made so that the jagirdari (feudal) system could remain intact".

Each of these authors has challenged the widely accepted "Two Nation Theory" in Pakistan as the basis for partition, attributing the event to other causes. Each of them has come under attack from various quarters for his or her work and pronouncements on this highly emotionally-charged subject. Almost all of these views are continuing to generate considerable controversy in South Asia.

Here is the complete text of Afzal Tauseef's recent interview with Nyla Daud published by Newsline:

Having spurned the government of Pakistan’s first offer in recognition of your literary merit some years ago, you have once again been nominated for the prestigious Pride of Performance this year. Will you accept the honor this time?

When a senior police officer representing Zia-ul-Haq came to me offering a Pride of Performance with a prize of eight murabbas of cultivatable landholding, I had refused pointblank. Because, one, all my life I had written against the very system that was being perpetuated by Zia. Two, my acceptance would have led to the indictment of 41 other comrades in the Libya Conspiracy Case in which I had been named a party. So, my answer had been that to be remembered as a freedom fighter and revolutionary were far greater awards. That having been named as the best teacher by 25,000 students was a far greater honour. That I did not care for the bait of a landholding because my grandfather had owned three villages in undivided India. That my late father who had been the Quaid’s security officer in Ziarat had made no claims against his ancestral holdings, despite being in a position to do so, even while others were making fortunes. But yes, now I will accept the Pride of Performance because I have been convinced by friends that the award comes as an honour not from the establishment, but from the country that I have fought for. That it is my right.

What has been the single, most powerful factor in the development of your political ideology?

Growing up in Balochistan, reading the world’s literature with teachers who were book lovers with a progressive bent of mind and acquiring the feel for the Marxist revolution and for social injustice that had already taken seed. But when I moved to Lahore as a teacher at the Lady Maclagan College in the late ’60s, the contrasts in society became more glaring. I realised that the Punjab, with its vast population of honest folk, was a hotbed of oppression perpetuated by good-for-nothing land owners aided by bureaucrats. They had all the power, all the wealth; the awam led miserable lives. I awakened to the reality and joined the rank and file of the Peoples Party as it rose up against the Ayub regime.

Those were exciting times and it was a unique experience to teach younger people who were looking for direction. I had been selected by the Public Service Commission for my lecturer’s position and, although we were not activists in the real sense of the word, the generally suspicious environment forced us to attend party meetings in burqas so as not to be detected, because there were spies everywhere.

Along with Shaheen, Haneef Ramay’s wife – whom I knew from my Quetta days – we formed the underground wing of the PPP. There were about 25,000 female members with us at the time of the crackdown. Then later, during the Zia regime, I was in the forefront of the Bhutto Bachao Tehreek because we wanted to save him at any cost. But even as lakhs of people agitated for the cause and received public lashings, we could not save him. In fact, this has been one of the greatest defeats I have suffered in my life.

The fact remains that Bhutto, your ideological hero, too failed democracy. As did his daughter Benazir.

Yes, in a way, because even during Bhutto’s lifetime, the PPP was on the way to being derailed. All the pioneers, the real persons behind the ideology were so disillusioned that, but for Sheikh Rasheed, they all went their separate ways. Hanif Ramay, one of the original PPP members, was subjected to torture in the Lahore Fort when Bhutto was in power. Dr Mubashir Hasan walked out, giving up a ministry when Bhutto sacked the NAP government in Balochistan. But Bhutto realised his mistake because when asked for his last wish, he had said, “Give me a pistol with 32 bullets and my central committee.”

Benazir, like Bhutto, disappointed although she suffered a lot. We were all for her but as soon as she took oath as prime minister, we realised that the position had been won on the basis of compromises. Benazir compromised with the very people who had killed her father. But had she not acceded to the American point of view, she would have remained in exile all her life, which might have been better in the long run. Her worst mistake was that she compromised on ideology, at the cost of the masses and, that too, at the behest of an imperialist power.

Today, there is no Peoples Party and Zardari’s promotion of Bilawal without in-house party elections is child’s play. It is a game like so many other games that the people have been fooled into accepting.

The Baloch cause, with its apparently anti-federation, separatist viewpoint, has always won your sympathy. Why?

Because Balochistan took me in when I was homeless, when I had no identity. It nurtured me, gave me an awakening and maturity of thought. I have seen how the rights of the Baloch have been trampled upon. Under such conditions, what do you expect? That they will be appeased by being given a hospital or bags of atta? You have to first dress their wounds, which have been festering for so long. Treat them as a part of Pakistan. By the way, Balochistan came to Pakistan only by one vote and that belonged to Akbar Bugti, who was ultimately annihilated by bombs. You don’t bomb your own countrymen like that.

As for representing Balochistan, Bugti (now dead), Marri (who is too old now) and Attaullah Mengal were the only people who had a genuine feeling for the land. Just because they rose up for the rights of the Baloch, they were put into prison, some of them for 25 years at a stretch. All they wanted were their rights in a Pakistan where provincial autonomy does not exist. Balochistan, Sindh and the Frontier province, all have the same grouse.

So the Punjab would be the villain of the piece and, in that case, where does the federation figure?

There never has been a federation and even the Punjab would have been better off with autonomy because I believe that provincial autonomy would strengthen democracy. That was what the Quaid had planned. As for my loyalties, I am all for the awam irrespective of the province they belong to. Punjab is my birthplace and it is to Punjab I owe my identity as a thinker and writer for which I have received so many awards. In fact, if I had not moved here, I would never have learnt to speak my mother tongue nor developed the courage to write in it. Punjabi brought me the friendship of people like Amrita Pretam who has written a book about me, calling me “the child of a lesser God” for my sensitivity in portraying the sensibilities of the masses. My Punjabi writings got me invited to India for an award, thereby giving me the chance of a lifetime to visit the village of my forefathers and relive the tragic ironies of their lives for having sacrificed life over loyalty to the homeland at the time of Partition.

In spite of all this you went to India to accept an award from the very people who had murdered your family and rendered you homeless ?

The Millennium Award people had arranged a very big function in my honour. I was sitting on the stage when they came up, putting their hands together as a gesture of apology. But I said that if you do so then I will also have to apologise because the same sort of cruelties were perpetuated here against the Sikhs and Hindus. The only difference is that those stories have not been written about on the Pakistani side of the border.

How would you review the academic scene in view of your 35-year experience as an educationist?

Zia-ul-Haq’s period was the darkest. At a personal level, I was haunted by the agencies to the extent that once I escaped by jumping over the walls of neighbouring houses at two in the morning. This led to a long period of hide-and-seek, ending only when I myself surrendered to the ISI in Quetta in order to save my sympathisers.

At the public level, one of the first things Zia did was to get together a bunch of pseudo literateurs and publicly tell them that Progressive literature and thought were mere rubbish that would eat up the system. Waris Mir died of shock when he saw the treatment being meted to progressive thought. But the most direct fallout happened when they started scratching away at the history and literature syllabi. They redesigned courses with the express notion of introducing very warped versions of Islamiyat as a subject. I was a sitting member of the Senate Committee on syllabi planning and I told them explictly that while one could somehow compromise on the removal of Faiz from the syllabi, why had we suddenly taken affront to some very beautiful expressions of Iqbal when in the same breath they continued to maintain that Iqbal gave the idea of Pakistan. When I persisted, they told me that the order for the removal of Iqbal’s verses like “Uththo Meree Dunya Kay Ghareebon Ko Jaga Do” had come from above! I maintained that it was not a divine order. So their next excuse was that Iqbal was too difficult to teach. I offered my services to prepare teachers of Iqbal if that was the problem. The very next day I was informed that I was no longer on the Senate Committee.

Where would you pin the cause for the state of things in Pakistan today?

Jagirdari and the jagirdari mindset, especially as it grew to gather political backing. It cost us a wing of the country. This system is an enemy of those with socially-awakened intellect. Nowhere else in the entire world can you find such an oppressive system. India put an end to it at the very beginning but our leaders continue to nourish it. I personally think that if Nehru had not included land reforms in his programme, Pakistan would never have been created. The country was made so that the jagirdari system could remain intact. The jagirdars, who were all protégées of the British, knew that if left in the Congress fold, they would be wiped out since at that time Marxist thought was moving into the subcontinent. The Muslim League was a product of the British and the land-owning Nawabs. On the other side was America, who wanted something in return for the money it had given to the British during the war. They wanted an area where a new imperialism could be let loose. And this is what continues to this day. Now we are paying for it dearly.

But the initial thought behind Pakistan was La illa ha illallah.

That slogan came much later when Liaquat Ali Khan passed the Qarardad-i-Maqaasid. The Quaid had seen Pakistan as a secular state, but within a year-and-a-half he was almost a helpless prisoner in Ziarat. My father was very close to him and I remember him quoting the Quaid as telling a group of students who had come to visit him in Ziarat, “Where is the Muslim League? This typewriter and myself?” The Quaid had never envisioned the Muslim League as a party of landowners. In fact, he was against the allotment of property to people against claims of things left behind in India during Partition. For this reason the rift between him and Liaquat Ali Khan grew to the extent that they were not even on talking terms towards the end. We all know how he was treated on his final journey from Karachi Airport to the governor general’s house.

What is your greatest concern today?

That Pakistan survives. That it is able to weather all the malicious intent directed at it. That the murder and mayhem rampant across its length and breadth may come to an end. I have always been against military intervention but today, there is so much at stake – the country, the people, the very culture – that I believe the army must act.

I also maintain that along with the overall influence of the imperialist powers in the face of a weakened awam, Mullahism is the most significant threat. Pakistan was not made solely for Muslims. The very fact that Muslims are daily at each other’s throats proves the point that there is no such thing as the Muslim collective. Today, society is just a configuration of the different statuses enjoyed by Muslims … the poor, the rich, the oppressed, the oppressors, the powerful and the powerless.

Your hypothesis reeks of disillusionment, meaning that your life-long activism led nowhere.

No, I still believe that the people who came under our influence will eventually rise to recreate the system. I am proud today of the number of students who learnt to think with me. My generation may have failed but I still see light at the end of the tunnel.

It is interesting to see the conventional historical narratives being challenged and analyzed in more depth on both sides of the divide in South Asia.

A serious introspection of events which led to the partition of India can either reopen or help heal the wounds, depending on how the mainstream scholars and leaders in the two nations choose to deal with history.

In my view, Pakistan is a reality that must be accepted, and supported by all to make it a peaceful, stable and prosperous nation, and to ensure regional peace and prosperity. A healing process in the subcontinent can do a lot of good for all of the people of South Asia. It can bring lasting peace between India and Pakistan, and potentially move the region toward a successful common market similar to the European Union.

Related Links:

Jaswant Lauds Jinnah

Feudal Slavery Survives in Pakistan

Ode to Feudal Prince of Pakistan

Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail?

Global Firepower

Jinnah's Pakistan Booms Amidst Doom and Gloom

Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah's Vision of Pakistan

India Wins Freedom by Maulana Azad

Ayesha Jalal Taking On Pakistan's Hero

The Poor Neighbor by William Dalrymple

Iqbal and Jinnah

Two Nation Theory

Feudal Slavery Survives in South Asia

The return of democracy in Pakistan last year has once again put feudal political elite firmly in charge of the nation's affairs. Both major parties, the PPP and the PML, are heavily dominated by the country's biggest landowners, who are reliability voted into power by their poor landless peasants making up the majority of the electorate in Pakistan.

British writer William Dalrymple has accurately described the politics in Pakistan as follows: "There is a fundamental flaw in Pakistan's political system. Democracy has never thrived here, at least in part because landowning remains almost the only social base from which politicians can emerge. In general, the educated middle class - which in India seized control in 1947, emasculating the power of its landowners - is in Pakistan still largely excluded from the political process. As a result, in many of the more backward parts of Pakistan the local feudal zamindar can expect his people to vote for his chosen candidate. Such loyalty can be enforced. Many of the biggest zamindars have private prisons and most have private armies."

The Pakistani landlord's "private prisons" came in sharp focus recently with the news of 170 peasants being held against their will by Sindhi landowners, in violation of the court orders.

Responding to questions about the situation during US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's recent visit, Luis CdeBaca, President Obama's ambassador-at-large to monitor and combat trafficking in persons, told Time magazine, "we are exploring ways we can help Pakistan to confront the scourge of captive workers, to deliver freedom for these workers and realize the promise of Pakistan's 1992 emancipation law."


In his recent column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff argued that the feudal systems remains the biggest obstacle to reform in Pakistan. Addressing those who have not been to Pakistan, Kristoff explains that they "should know that in remote areas you periodically run into vast estates — comparable to medieval Europe — in which the landowner runs the town, perhaps operates a private prison in which enemies are placed, and sometimes pretty much enslaves local people through debt bondage, generation after generation. This feudal elite has migrated into politics, where it exerts huge influence. And just as the heartlessness of feudal and capitalist barons in the 19th century created space for Communists, so in Pakistan this same lack of compassion for ordinary people seems to create space for Islamic extremists. There are other answers, of course, such as education, civil society, and the lawyers’ movement. But I wonder if land reform wouldn’t be a big help."

There have been rare instances when media attention and public pressure have compelled the government to free haaris from private prisons. In April this year, a private TV channel GeoTV reported that police freed 14 people including 8 children and 4 women from the private prison of a landlord in Faiz Muhammad Brohi Goth in Gadap Town near Karachi.

Though Pakistan has been in the news lately for its continuing practice of slavery, it is not alone. Bonded labor in South Asia is considered the problem in modern slavery affecting millions of people. The UN believes 20 million people are enslaved worldwide, the majority of whom are in South Asia, according to a BBC report.

A recent report by US State Department for 2009 said that “India is a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and commercial sexual exploitation.”

India is listed with 52 countries on the watch list of nations that have failed to meet the minimum standards against human trafficking but are making efforts to do so. The blacklisted countries are subject to US sanctions if they don’t make greater efforts to fight trafficking.

The Philippines, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Pakistan have recently been added to the U.S. “watch list” because of what the report calls a worsening trafficking record in those countries.

“This is modern slavery. A crime that spans the globe, providing ruthless employers with endless supply of people to abuse for financial gain,” Secretary Clinton said as she released the report.

For the first time, India, China, Russia, Sri Lanka and Egypt and other countries that have been on the on Tier 2 watch list for two years, face the prospect of being automatically moved to the Tier 3 blacklist next year without a presidential waiver if they fail improve their trafficking record, the State Department said.

A 2004 study by the International Labor Office (ILO) estimated that there are up to a million haari families in Sindh alone, the majority living in conditions of debt bondage, which the U.N. defines as modern-day slavery. Last fall, Pakistan's Daily Times newspaper quoted the labor minister of neighboring Punjab province as saying that landlords hold millions of forced laborers in "private prisons" across the country.

Amidst all the cries for democracy, independent judiciary, human rights and social justice in Pakistan, nothing has fundamentally changed during the last year under "democracy", except the worsening economy, much longer power outages and a growing sense of insecurity. Regardless of the party labels and promises, the feudal power continues to endure in the name of democracy. The choices remain narrow for Pakistanis: Choose between the military and the feudal class. There is no third choice as long as the middle class remains small and unable and unwilling to exert strong influence to bring about much-needed reforms. The only hope for real democracy and necessary social, political and economic reforms lies in continued robust growth of the middle class over an extended period of time of another decade or two. There are no guarantees that the current feudal rulers will permit that.

Here is a video about global South Asia's poverty and slavery:





Related Links:

India Not Combating Slavery
Bonded Labor in India, Nepal and Pakistan
Feudalism in Pakistan

Is Democracy Right For Pakistan?

Slavery in Pakistan

US State Department Report on Human Trafficking 2009
Feudal Power Dominates Pakistani Democracy

Bloody Revolution in India?

As Pakistan deals with a powerful insurgency and daily carnage, there are calls for backing up the Pakistani army-led counterinsurgency with major social, economic and political reforms to calm the growing social unrest that attracts young men and women to radical causes. These calls are being reinforced by the belief that the Taliban insurgent groups often succeed by exploiting local grievances against powerful landlords, and lack of economic opportunity for the alienated young population growing up under feudal or tribal systems.

Some of these conditions are not unique to Pakistan. Pakistan's neighbor India has bigger issues of landless peasants, the caste-based Apartheid, and the problem of widespread hunger, poverty and desperation, which is worse than most of its neighbors. In addition, there is a known and growing nexus between the radical Hindus and some of the Indian intelligence and military officials, as recently detailed by former police chief of Maharashtra, Mr. S.M. Mushrif in his book titled "Who Killed Karare?".

Here is a report by a Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai after his recent visit to India:

"I fear there will be a bloody revolution in India," a retired Indian military officer remarked to this writer and other guests during a recent visit to New Delhi. It was shocking to hear the comment from a soldier, in a country that supposedly had given a voice to its huge population and was believed to be all-inclusive.

It is obvious that India's much-praised democracy hasn't brought any real change in the lives of millions of Indians. That some of the poorest men and women are now up in arms in parts of India is evidence enough that democratically elected governments must do more to provide rights and justice to the rural poor and ensure even-handed development in different parts of the country.

The Naxalite violence in India has caused pain to most thinking Indians. For them it is a matter of anguish that a growing number of Indians are disillusioned with their country's democracy and see no hope of benefiting from India's steady economic progress. They have picked up the gun to fight for their rights.

The Maoist-linked violence is spreading and engulfing new places. The vast region affected by the insurgency include the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal and runs south through Orissa, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. It is usually called the "Red Corridor" because the leadership for the rebels is provided by communist cadres labelled as Maoists. The Communist Party of India (Marxists-Leninists), despite suffering splits, is still the standard-bearer of the rebels.

According to reports in the Indian media, more than 220 districts in 20 or so states are now affected by Maoist-linked violence. Indian intelligence agencies believe the movement has at its disposal 20,000 armed cadres and over 50,000 regular members. Apart from the rural poor, indigenous tribes such as the Girijans in Andhra Pradesh and Santhals in West Bengal have been flocking to the Naxalite movement. The movement has appeal for the dispossessed and the under-privileged. In the words of its present leader, Mupalla Laxman Rao, in hiding somewhere in eastern India and better known as Ganapathi, his party's influence has grown stronger and it was now the only genuine alternative before the people of India.

The Naxalite movement began as a peasants' uprising in May 1969 in the village of Naxalbari in West Bengal. It was initially led by 49-year-old Charu Mazumdar and its aim was to seize power through an agrarian revolution by overthrowing the feudal order. Mazumdar died in police custody 12 days after his arrest in Calcutta in 1972 and became a hero to Maoist cadres that have increased in number and strength over the years despite splits in the movement. The Naxalite insurgency has sprouted after every defeat and is now stronger than ever.

India's share of the world's poorest people has increased to 39 percent from 25 percent in 1980. In comparison, the Below Poverty Line population worldwide has decreased from 1,470 million to 970 million. There are reportedly 301 million Indians below the poverty line, just 19 million less than in 1983. The Human Development Report by the UN has been ranking India among the lowest 60 or 65 countries in the list of 193 nations that are part of the annual study. India's poor performance on this score was in spite of the around nine percent growth rate in its GDP. There are reports in the media about farmers committing suicide or selling their wives to pay mounting debts. Though the recorded figures of such cases aren't high in a big country such as India with 1.17 billion people, it still indicates the desperate state of certain communities.

India's poor and marginalised groups have on occasions showed their anger through the power of the ballot. This happened in the 2004 and also in the 2009 national elections. The Hindu nationalist BJP tried to seek votes by coining the slogan, India Shining, in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections as part of its claim that its coalition government had brought prosperity during its five-year rule. But the electorate thought otherwise as the majority, particularly the poor and rural voters, the lower castes and minorities hadn't benefited from the progress that had mostly made the rich richer. Their verdict in the polls was against the BJP-led NDA alliance and in support of the Congress and its allies. The Congress won again in 2009 despite the incumbency factor because it was largely seen as the party that cared more for the rights of the poor and the rural voters and was conscious of the concerns of the minorities, particularly Muslims.

However, it is the ruling Congress now that is confronted with the challenge of responding to the needs of India's restless rural poor and tribal communities. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently described the Naxalite insurgency as the single greatest threat to India's internal security. Rahul Gandhi, son of Congress head Sonia Gandhi and the rising star of Indian politics, has been focusing on the vast Indian hinterland, visiting the under-developed rural villages and spending nights at the homes of Dalits, often termed the poorest and most oppressed people in the country. This cannot be enough to calm down the Naxalites, who are convinced that only force could win the Indian people their rights.

A showdown between the Indian government and the Naxalites is now imminent. The Congress-led government is mobilising hundreds of thousands of security personnel, mostly police and paramilitary forces, to launch an offensive against the Maoists mostly likely in November. It has ruled out the use of the military, but the operation will be coordinated from New Delhi as part of a central government initiative. Indian analysts and foreigners knowledgeable about India have pointed out that the country lacked a cohesive strategy to deal with the insurgency. The ruling elites have also been criticised for being slow in responding to the needs of the poorest communities, who were then easily recruited by the Maoists.

Such is the hatred of the Naxalites for the ruling elite that their leader Ganapathi, a former schoolteacher, branded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P Chidambaran as "terrorists." In a recent interview at his secret jungle hideout with the weekly magazine Open, he said "the people will rise up like a tornado under our party's leadership to wipe out the reactionary blood-sucking vampires ruling our country." At another point, the 59-year old Ganapathi declared: "Those (government) sharks want to loot the wealth and drive the tribal people of the region to further impoverishment."

By threatening to unleash a "tornado" of violence if the Indian government went ahead with its planned large-scale offensive against his insurgent forces, Ganapathi has made the intentions of the Maoists obvious. Already, his men, and even some women cadres, have carried out actions that are now normally associated with the Taliban. They have kidnapped and beheaded government officials, blown up electricity and telephone towers, destroyed roads and railway tracks, killed political opponents and attacked police stations and other official installations. The offensive against the Naxalites will certainly weaken and deprive them of some of their bases and hideouts, but the issue cannot be resolved by the use of force alone. Many members of the Indian intelligentsia sympathise with the cause of the Maoists and objective analysts see it as an economic issue and one concerning lack of justice. The Indian ruling elite needs to tackle the root-cause of the insurgency instead of applying force through the state apparatus to crush the rebels.

I think Mr. Yousufzai, an independent journalist and reporter from Pakistan, has done a good job of reporting what he saw and heard in India and he has put it in context.

But predicting revolutions is hazardous business. In spite of studying historic causes of past revolutions, it's not any more accurate than predicting when and where the next big earthquake or hurricane will hit and what will happen in its aftermath.

Talking about Pakistan, the violence has reached new heights in recent days. The conditions have existed for a while and the triggers have been in place, and yet, it's not certain if what we are seeing now is indeed a revolution. There are still many questions as to whether the nation's political and military leadership can forestall a bloody revolution, by a combination of the use of force and appearance of reform to placate those violently protesting the tyranny of the status quo. After all, terrorism is often defined as a form of violent protest.

In India, too, conditions exist for a bloody revolution. But it's not certain what the trigger will be. It could be the growth of the Maoist movement and its spread from rural to urban India where it begin to be seen by Indian urban middle class and gets the attention of the world media. But it's by no means fait accompli. All depends on the ability of India's political leaders and its military's competency in forestalling it. But the jury is still out on these questions.


Rahimullah Yusufzai is resident editor of The News in Peshawar. Email: rahimyusufzai@yahoo.com

Here is British Writer William Dalrymple talking about India and Pakistan:



Here's are two video clips about Maoists in India:





Related Links:

Can Indian Democracy Deliver?
Grinding Poverty in Resurgent India

Pakistan's Choice: Globalization or Talibanization
The Tornado Awaiting India

Insurgents Violence Reports in India

Countering Militancy in FATA

Political, Economic and Social Reforms in Pakistan

Fixing Sanitation Crisis in India
Western Myths About "Stable, Peaceful, Prosperous" India

Taliban Target Landed Elite

Feudal Punjab Fertile For Terror

Caste: India's Apartheid

"Ode" to the Feudal Prince of Pakistan

In spite of its claims to the contrary, the Bhutto family's private jagir (property) of Pakistan People's Party has been instrumental in preserving the feudal system in Pakistan, through perpetuation of its feudal democracy, controlled by the largest landowners in Sind and Punjab.

Z.A. Bhutto's nationalization in the 1970s was the biggest culprit that stymied industrialization of Pakistan and the growth of the middle class, while it preserved the feudal system. Bhutto emasculated the industrialists who encouraged better education and skills development for workers for their industries, while feudal rulers continued to take their toll on the rural poor living on their lands who remain their slaves and reliably continue to vote their feudal lords into power in the name of democracy.

The Bhutto era nationalization has left such deep scars on the psyche of Pakistani industrialists that, to this day, these industrialists are not willing to make long-term investments in big industrial projects with long gestation periods.

To perpetuate the feudal system in the name of democracy, the PPP has a new prince, Prince Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, with his father Asif Ali Zardari acting as regent. Prince Bilawal is being heavily used and abused by Asif Zardari to promote the interests of the his incompetent and corrupt leadership, and to ensure that PPP remains in power to serve the feudal elite under the guise of democracy.

Here are a couple of video clips of Prince Bilawal who spent part of his summer vacation in Pakistan stumping for the PPP:





The military governments have, in fact, been more pro-industrialization because the military elite benefits from the manufacturing sector as much much as it does from real estate and agriculture sectors.

I am disappointed that the military, particularly President Musharraf, did not dismantle and destroy the feudal system when they had a chance. Instead, to respond to external pressure from the West, the military dictators, including General Musharraf, bought off some of the PPP or PML feudals, held elections and created the facade of democracy. This allowed the feudals to continue to dominate Pakistan's political landscape under both military and civilian governments.

However, over the decades, Pakistani economy has consistently performed better and created a lot more jobs during military rule than under the PPP or the PML "democratic" governments. These new jobs have helped tens of millions in the rural areas with the option to leave the life of slavery on the farms to get jobs in cities in the industrial and services sectors of the economy.



Pakistan's average economic growth rate was 6.8% in the 60s (Gen. Ayub Khan), 4.5% in the 70s(Zulfikar Bhutto), 6.5% in the 80s (Gen. Zia ul-Haq), and 4.8% in the 90s (Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif). Growth picked up momentum in the 21st Century under General Musharraf, and from 2000-2007, Pakistan's economy grew at an average 7.5%, making it the third fastest growing economy in Asia after China and India. There were 2-3 million new jobs created each year from 2000-2007, which significantly enlarged the middle class, and helped millions escape poverty.


Related Links:

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari at Oxford

Biawal's Extracurricular Activities

Musharraf's Economic Legacy

Taliban Target Pakistan's Landed Elite

Pakistan's Feudal Democracy

Will Someone Hand Bilawal a Spliff?

Pakistan's Military-Industrial Complex

Pakistan: A Cradle of Civilization Breeds a New Nation

Taliban Target Pakistan's Landed Elite

While there has been widespread condemnation of the Taliban imposing Shariah Law and justifiable outcry against the flogging of a teenage girl in Swat by the Western and Pakistani media, there's been a very little reported about the Taliban's popular war on the landed elite in Swat. The emerging accounts from Pakistanis who have fled Swat now make clear that the Taliban seized control by pushing out about four dozen landlords who held the most power in the former princely state. It also explains why the soldiers and policemen refused to fight on behalf of the landlord politicians against the Taliban who are supported by their oppressed brethren.

“This was a bloody revolution in Swat. I wouldn’t be surprised if it sweeps the established order of Pakistan", the New York Times quoted a Pakistani official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Already, the Taliban's message is finding resonance in feudal Punjab, the heartland of Pakistan.

The insurgents struck at any competing point of power: landlords and elected leaders — who were usually the same people — and an underpaid and unmotivated police force, said Khadim Hussain, a linguistics and communications professor at Bahria University in Islamabad. At the same time, the Taliban exploited the resentments of the landless tenants, particularly the fact that they had many unresolved cases against their bosses in a slow-moving and corrupt justice system, Mr. Hussain and residents who fled the area said. Nizam-e-Adl, their new Sharia-based justice system, became the rallying cry for their revolution in Swat.

The Taliban have broadly asserted control over the entire valley and they are now threatening to take over surrounding districts. The tenants of the fleeing landlords have been rewarded by the Taliban. They were encouraged to cut down the orchard trees and sell the wood for their own profit, the former residents said. Or they were told to pay the rent to the Taliban instead of their now absentee bosses. Two dormant emerald mines have reopened under Taliban control. The Taliban have said that they will receive one-third of the revenues.

When provincial bureaucrats visit Mingora, Swat’s capital, they must now follow the Taliban’s orders and sit on the floor, surrounded by Taliban carrying weapons, according to a senior NWFP official.

While the big landowners have all the power in Pakistan's feudal democracy, they do not even pay any taxes on their income. As part of a plan to increase tax revenue, the IMF has been pressing Pakistan for the introduction of a tax on agricultural income. Pakistan's large landowners have tenaciously resisted such proposals in the past. Should Islamabad ultimately impose a tax on agricultural income, it will only be after a bitter struggle within the Pakistani feudal ruling class over how to design it to be regressive to make small producers bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Given the underlying and growing resentment against the feudal/tribal power of a narrow and corrupt ruling elite in Pakistan, it is almost certain that Swat represents only the beginning of a bloody revolt in the rest of the country.

It is also clear that the new generation of Pakistanis do not want to accept life under a feudal or tribal system that denies them basic human dignity. In the absence of significant economic growth (even the phenomenal 8% growth roughly equals 2.5m jobs), not enough jobs are being created for 3 million young people ready to join the work force each year, resulting in growing availability of recruits for terror outfits who pay them fairly well by local standards. According to Rand corporation estimates, the Taliban pay about $150 a month to each fighter, much higher than the $100 a month paid by the governments in the region. This fact has been amply illustrated by recent growth of the Punjabi Taliban who have been found recruited by terrorist groups for suicide bombings and violence within and outside Pakistan.

Ironically, there are some parallels here between the violent Maoists movement in India and the Taliban militants in Pakistan, in spite of their diametrically opposed ideologies. Maoists say they are fighting for the rights of neglected tribal people and landless farmers, as are the Taliban in FATA and NWFP. Both movements have killed dozens of people, including security personnel, in the last few weeks. Both movements control wide swathes of territory in their respective countries.

In addition to the landless farmers, the continuing high rates of farmer suicides are also fueling the Maoists movement in India. More than 1,500 Indian farmers committed suicide after being pushed into debt through crop failures. The reason for the crop failures have been blamed on falling water irrigation levels, climate change and the increasing globalization of water rights. "The water level has gone down below 250 feet here. It used to be at 40 feet a few years ago," Shatrughan Sahu, a villager in one of the districts, told Down To Earth magazine.

While the efforts to create and fund reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZ) in FATA are desirable and welcome, what is really needed is an international Marshall Plan style effort toward transforming Pakistan from a feudal/tribal to an industrial society. Pakistan's President Zardari has called for such a Marshall Plan for Pakistan. Such an effort will face major hurdles from Zardari's own party and its corrupt feudal leadership. However, if it is successfully implemented to respond to mounting pressure by the Taliban, new opportunities will open up for the nation's young population to offer them better alternatives to joining Jihadi outfits or seeking work in countries like Saudi Arabia where they are further radicalized.

Taliban have latched on to a cause that appeals to the common people in Pakistan's feudal society. They are pursuing it with a revolutionary zeal. Like Hizbullah in Lebanon and Google in Silicon Valley, it seems to me that the Taliban play their own game by their own rules. They are very focused, extremely nimble and highly adaptive, and they know how to raise money, as well as any Silicon Valley startup. They have mastered the art of "disruption" and "change". And they appear to have the upper hand at the moment.

The end of the feudal system will be a welcome change in Pakistan. It will be unfortunate, however, if the repression of the people by the feudal/tribal elite is simply replaced by their religious persecution by the narrow-minded and intolerant Taliban in Pakistan. I just hope it's not too late to change the course of events in Pakistan.


Related Links:

The World According to Google, Hizbullah and Taliban

Feudal Punjab Fertile for Terrorism

Qasab's Journey in Time Magazine

Feudal Shadow in Pakistan Elections

UN Millennium Goals in Pakistani Village

Saudi-ization of Pakistan

Pakistan's FATA Face-off Fears

FATA Reconstruction Opportunity Zones

Pakistan Power Centers: Feudals, Clergy and Military

Feudal Punjab Fertile Ground for Pakistani Jihadists?

The conventional wisdom holds that Pakistani jihadists come mainly from the radical Wahabi madrassas that proliferated in Pakistan's tribal belt near the Afghan border during the US-Saudi-Pakistani supported campaign against the former Soviet Union. Most of the world attention has, therefore, been focused on the efforts by US and Pakistan to try and contain the influence of NWFP's Deobandi Islam. Some of the madrassas have been forced to shut down while others have been attacked by US and Pakistan. As part of the effort to improve economic opportunities, Pakistan has set up FATA Development Authority and the US and international financial institutions are planning to fund reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZ) to deny recruits to the Jehadist outfits.

In addition to Shia Islam, which accounts for 15-20% of the population, there are primarily two schools of thought among Sunni Muslims in South Asia. Barelvi and Deobandi. Barelvi, or Ahle-Sunna, is a movement of Sunni Sufism that was founded by Ahmed Raza Khan of Bareilly, Rohilkhand India (hence the term Barelvi). Barelvis are a sizable portion of the Hanafi Muslim communities in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa and the United Kingdom, besides having a presence in other places around the world. Deobandi is a Sunni Islamic revivalist movement which started in India and Pakistan and has more recently spread to other countries, such as Afghanistan, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The name derives from the town of Deoband, (Uttar Pradesh) India, where the school Darul Uloom Deoband is situated. Deobandis follow the fiqh of Abu Hanifa and the Aqidah of Abu Mansur Maturidi. Deobandi Islam is quite similar to the Wahabi Saudi Islam.

Punjab, the largest province in Pakistan, is considered the home of the followers of the sufi saints who taught a tolerant, loving version of Barelvi Islam. Deobandi Islam (patterned after Saudi Wahabism) is not common in Punjab's rural landscape. But Mumbai attacker Ajmal Qasab's story, published in March 16 issue of Time magazine, suggests that the rising expectations of young Pakistanis and the deprivations they suffer in feudal Punjab are helping the mainly NWFP-Deobandi-inspired Jihadi outfits in their recruiting efforts. Here's an excerpt from Time that implies feudalism drives young men like Qasab to join the terror outfits:

"Faridkot is not the hardscrabble village conjured up by common perceptions of extremist origins. It straddles a paved road about 2 1⁄2 hours' drive from Lahore, and two new gas stations mark the village boundaries. Beyond those are factories and fertile farmland. There is even BlackBerry service. But it is, undeniably, the sort of place that fosters frustration. Feudal landlords own the farmland, and villagers feel trapped by the status they are born into. The good life is tantalizingly close, yet for most residents still unattainable. For men like Qasab, one of the best ways out is jihad. "In a developing country, youngsters who are sensitive, concerned, they talk about 'How do we change what is going on here? How do we get rid of corruption?'" says (Pakistani psychologist Sohail) Abbas. "And if in some sense you find that jihad can help you in those aims, then why not?" It's a convolution of the adolescent craving to stand out. And Pakistani society, steeped in nihilistic passions fostered by the state sponsorship of jihad, condones it."


Like Ajmal Qasab, other unskilled and barely literate workers from rural Punjab are trying to find ways to escape the hard life under their feudal rulers. Some, like Qasab, go to major Pakistani cities in search of a better life and come in contact with Jihadi outfits like LeT. Others try and find employment in the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia. Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy describes the impact of exposure to the Arab world as follows:

"Villages (in Punjab) have changed drastically; this transformation has been driven, in part, by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other sects, who they do not regard as Muslims. The Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than the Pukhtuns, are now beginning to take a line resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law, as is evident from the recent decisions of the Lahore High Court."

It appears that the radical Islam is now spreading beyond its traditional home in NWFP and FATA to Pakistan's heartland of Punjab. It is also clear that the new generation of Pakistanis do not want to accept life under a feudal or tribal system that denies them basic human dignity.

While the efforts to create and fund reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZ) in FATA are desirable and welcome, what is really needed is an international Marshall Plan style effort toward transforming Pakistan from a feudal/tribal to an industrial society. Such an effort will face major hurdles from the feudal leadership of the major political parties in Pakistan. However, if it is successfully implemented, new opportunities will open up for the nation's young population to offer them better alternatives to joining Jihadi outfits or seeking work in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Related Links:

Qasab's Journey in Time Magazine

Feudal Shadow in Pakistan Elections

UN Millennium Goals in Pakistani Village

Saudi-ization of Pakistan

Pakistan's FATA Face-off Fears

FATA Reconstruction Opportunity Zones

Pakistan Power Centers: Feudals, Clergy and Military

UN Millennium Goals in Pakistani Village

"We need a hospital," one man said, "and a school for girls. If something could be done about the drinking water, we'd be grateful."

"One day it's diarrhea, the next day it's fever, the next day, vomiting" said a village woman, speaking about her children.

These villagers reluctantly spoke to their feudal prince of Ratrian, a poor village in north of Pakistan, highlighted by TVE and BBC recently. The young prince is Rafeh Malik, the son of the feudal lord Malik Atta Mohammad, whose family's vast land holdings include this village. The prince took the initiative to ask for his villagers' opinions about what needs to be done to improve their lives.

Apparently, Prince Rafeh Malik has been influenced by the United Nations Millennial Development Goals (MDGs) and he wants to try and implement them within his domain. He has taken the initiative by convincing his father that it must be done.

Here's a brief overview of the UN MDGs:

1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2 Achieve universal primary education
3 Promote gender equality and empower women
4 Reduce child mortality
5 Improve maternal health
6 Combat HIV/Aids, malaria, and other diseases
7 Ensure environmental sustainability
8 Develop a global partnership for development

These goals can not be achieved by governments alone. In spite of Pakistani government's efforts and international assistance, Pakistan does not have a lot to show in terms of real progress toward UN MDGs. Ranked at 136 on a list of 177 countries, Pakistan's human development ranking remains very low. Particularly alarming is the low primary school enrollment for girls which stands at about 30% in rural areas, where the majority of Pakistanis live. In fact, the South Asia average of primary school enrollment is pulled down by Pakistan, the only country in all of Asia and the Pacific with the lowest primary enrollment rate of 70 per cent in 2005. This is 12 percentage points lower than that of Maldives, which, at 80 per cent, has the second lowest rate in Asia and the Pacific. However, whereas Pakistan is rapidly reducing the proportion of children out of primary school - the net enrollment rate was just 60 per cent in 2003 - the rate in Maldives actually dropped 18 percentage points between 1999 and 2005.

The government effort is necessary but the real success will require active participation of private Pakistani citizens of all classes in society. People, including young, educated and enlightened feudal princes, need to come together to light candles rather than curse darkness.

The mission that Rafeh Malik has embarked on is an extremely welcome and necessary effort to change the feudal attitudes toward the poor in Pakistan. There are obviously risks and fears associated with any change. But Rafeh Malik's work should be an inspiration to other young men and women of the feudal class in Pakistan. "I am scared," Rafeh told his friend Shehryar Mufti, a Dawn TV journalist, "but I'm willing to take the risk."

Let's hope Rafeh Malik, and others like him, succeed in bringing about peaceful and positive changes in Pakistani feudal-tribal society that will ultimately benefit all Pakistanis, including the villagers, the middle class and the feudal and tribal chiefs. It has been shown in many developed nations that peaceful transitions from traditional feudal societies to modern democratic, successful, industrialized societies have brought wealth, peace and prosperity for all. The children of the feudal lords in Europe benefited from better education and lucrative business investments to remain rich and powerful, without keeping their people impoverished and illiterate. The transitions were clearly win-win situations for both the rulers and the ruled. The alternatives to peaceful transitions will be far worse for the big zamindars and sardars in Pakistan. Resistance to change by of the feudal-tribal leaders will prove dangerous and futile over the long run.

Related Links:

Light a Candle, Do Not Curse Darkness

BBC News

Lifeline

United Nations Report on School Enrollment

Volunteerism in Pakistan

Khadim or Makhdoom?

Makhdoom Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani has been elected and sworn in as the new prime minister of Pakistan. He won by a massive margin of 264 to 42.

The new prime minister belongs to an influential and spiritual shia family of Multan, born on June 9, 1952 in Karachi, Pakistan. His father was a descendant of Syed Musa Pak, a leading Sufi spiritual figure of Multan of the Qadiri Sufi Order of Shi'a Islam. Syed Musa Pak hailed from the Iranian province of Gilan. One of Gilani's maternal aunts is the wife of Pir Pagara. Makhdoom Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani is married and has four sons and one daughter, Fiza Gilani and one grandson. The eldest son of the Makhdoom, Makhdoom Syed Abdul Qadir Gilani, is marrying the grand-daughter of Pir Pagara today in Karachi.

The Makhdoom recieved early education at La Salle High School at Multan. He graduated with BA in 1970 and MA in Journalism from University of the Punjab, Lahore in 1976.

The Makhdoom began his political journey from the platform of Pakistan Muslim League during General Zia-ul-Haq's martial law in 1978. He joined the Muslim League's Central Working Committee. He was also a cabinet member in the three-year government of Prime Minister Muhammad Khan Junejo. He served as Minister of Housing and Works from April 1985 to January 1986 and Railways Minister from January 1986 to December 1986.

After a short stint with the Muslim League, the Makhdoom joined the Pakistan Peoples Party in 1988 and has since remained PPP's loyal and steadfast supporter. In the Benazir Bhutto government of 1988-1990, Gilani was again a cabinet minister: He was Minister of Tourism from March 1989 to January 1990 and again served as Minister of Housing and Works from January 1990 to August 1990.

In the Benazir Bhutto government of 1993-1996, the Makhdoom was elected the Speaker of National Assembly of Pakistan, which he stayed till February 1997.

He has been elected various times as Member of National Assembly from Multan. In the 2008 general election, he beat PML-Q leader Sikandar Hayat Bosan.

While the Makhdoom deserves to be congratulated for winning the nod from the PPP-PML(N) leadership to become the new prime minister, it is hard to see this development as a new beginning and a clean break from the past. He is part of the feudal club and a creature of the military, not unlike the "democtartic" leaders of the past. He owes his position to the family wealth and connections buttressed by the claim to being a descendant of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH).

Just prior to the recent elections in Pakistan, the BBC talked about the feudal shadow over Pakistan as follows: "In many cases they(feudals)are also able to claim the loyalty of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of "murids" (devotees) who believe they are directly descended from local saints. On top of this, they usually control the "station and katchery" (the police and the courts) which ensures the compliance, willing or not, of the local populace." Please read my February post on this subject.

As long as the feudal system and the feudal lords remain powerful in Pakistan, it will continue to have Makhdooms (lords) rather than Khadims (servants) in leadership positions.

Sources: Wikipedia, BBC News, Haq's Musings blog

A Woman Speaker: Another Token or Real Change?

Pakistan's new Parliament on Wednesday made history by electing the country's first female speaker from the party of late Benazir Bhutto.

Fehmida Mirza, 51, a businesswoman and medical doctor from a political family in Sindh province, elected to Parliament three times, won 249 of the 324 votes cast in a ballot in the National Assembly, or lower house. Her only challenger received 70 votes. Dr. Fehmida's husband, Dr. Zulfiqar Mirza, is a close friend and ally of Asif Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto.
"I am honored, I am humbled and happy," Mirza told reporters shortly before voting began. "It is one thing to sit in opposition but this chair carries big responsibility ... I am feeling that responsibility today and will, God willing, come up to expectations," she said.

In addition to the election of the first female speaker of parliament in Pakistan, the inauguration of new parliament is historic in another way: There are no burqas in sight with the defeat of the cleric alliance MMA. The real question now is whether these "history-making" events represent a real change or they are just cosmetic?

Writing in a prior post "Are Women in Pakistan Better Off Today?" I wrote as follows: "Most of the women represented in Pakistani parliament are from the same privileged, feudal class that is largely responsible for discrimination against women in Pakistan. The women in parliament have not been particularly vocal in raising the women's issues in parliament and they have not offered any serious legislation other than the Women's Protection Bill that was offered and passed because of President Musharraf's personal intervention. The word "feudal princess" often used to describe late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto applies well to the majority the women members of parliament in Pakistan. There is a continuing large literacy gap of as much as 45 percent between men and women and the opportunities for rural women's education remain elusive."

Though articulate and accomplished as a politician and a medical doctor, Dr. Fehmida Mirza fits the description of a feudal princess in the same way that Ms Bhutto did. Only time will tell if Dr. Mirza will break this stereotype and ring in real fundamental changes in the political process by being a positive and practical role model for women.

Ho-Hum Elections 2008

There are many reports from Pakistan indicating a general lack of visible enthusiasm on the streets in major cities with election 2008 only a few days away. This is in sharp contrast to prior elections when you could see a visible rise in mass rallies, big marches, personal outreach and candidate speeches on a daily basis in many parts of the big cities.

There could be several possible reasons for this absence of action and enthusiasm of previous elections. Here are a few:
1. Benazir Bhutto's assassination has had a chilling effect on street marches and rallies.
2. The multiplicity of public and private TV channels, a recent phenomenon since the last election in 2002, has moved the action from the street to the TV screen, more like the elections in the developed world. You can see quite a few political commercials and messages promoting various parties and their candidates.
3. The average people are just too disillusioned. They don’t believe anything will change for them regardless of who wins. They do not seem to feel they have a stake in the outcome.

I personally think it’s all of the above with #3 being the dominant reason.
Amidst all the cries for democracy, independent judiciary, human rights, and fair polls in Pakistan, most people believe nothing will change fundamentally on Feb 18. Regardless of the party labels and promises, the feudal power will endure in the name of democracy. The choices remain narrow for Pakistanis: Choose between military and the feudal class. There is no third choice as long as the middle class remains small and unable to exert any real influence. The only hope for real democracy lies in continued robust growth of the middle class over an extended period of time of another decade or two. There are no guarantees that feudal rulers will permit that.

Feudal Power Dominates Pakistani Elections

As Pakistanis go to the polls on Feb 18, 2008, the role of the feudal class in Pakistan as power brokers is getting scrutiny from the world media. Some Pakistani feudals and politicians, including Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi of PPP, Syed Fakhr Imam of PPP, Imran Khan (Tehreek Insaf), and others argue that the feudal influence is overrated. They say the feudal power is declining and represents more of a mindset than reality. However, the media men traveling through rural Sind and rural Punjab are finding that most, if not all, of the candidates of the major parties are big landowners. And the people living on their lands must choose from them. When asked by the BBC correspondent Shoaib Hasan why none of the farmers or other poor people consider standing as candidates, a group of village people burst out laughing.

Here are some of the foreign media reports that caught my attention:

William Dalrymple, writing for the Guardian in London says: "There is a fundamental flaw in Pakistan's political system. Democracy has never thrived here, at least in part because landowning remains almost the only social base from which politicians can emerge. In general, the educated middle class - which in India seized control in 1947, emasculating the power of its landowners - is in Pakistan still largely excluded from the political process. As a result, in many of the more backward parts of Pakistan the local feudal zamindar can expect his people to vote for his chosen candidate. Such loyalty can be enforced. Many of the biggest zamindars have private prisons and most have private armies."

Writing about Mumtaz Bhutto, whose son is a candidate for parliamentary seat, Aryn Baker of Time Magazine reports: As one of Pakistan's largest landowners, Bhutto is both a victim and a perpetrator of the corrosive feudal system that has shaped Pakistani society for most of its 60-year history, and still dictates how politics are done today. Bhutto's family has owned this patch of fertile land alongside the Indus River for nearly half a millennium, and on the wall of his stately home is the family tree to prove it. (He is a cousin of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto.) Sharecroppers till the lands, exchanging half they produce — rice, wheat and sugarcane — for a place to live, seeds and fertilizer. And patronage. "If my tenants are happy with me, they work more efficiently on the lands," says Bhutto. "You help the people and they will help you." That exchange extends into the political realm. Bhutto isn't running in this year's parliamentary elections — he's retired — but his son is. With some 10,000 acres of land being cultivated by a vast network of thousands of sharecroppers dependent on feudal largesse, the Bhutto family can count on a large turnout of supporters at the polls.

BBC South Asia service talks about the power and influence of the feudal lords near Multan in Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi's district as follows: The term "feudal or "feudal lord" refers to the large-scale landholding families in Pakistan.By dint of their landholdings, which they rent to tenant farmers, the feudal lords are able to exercise immense financial and political influence. In many cases they are also able to claim the loyalty of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of "murids" (devotees) who believe they are directly descended from local saints. On top of this, they usually control the "station and katchery" (the police and the courts) which ensures the compliance, willing or not, of the local populace.

Regardless of which party or parties emerge as the winners on February 18, one thing is certain: The power and the influence of the feudals will be very well represented in the corridors of power. And the ordinary people of Pakistan will continue to be at their mercy in the name of democracy, unless the military refuses to cede power to the elected feudals.

Amidst all the cries for democracy, independent judiciary, human rights, and fair polls in Pakistan, nothing will change fundamentally on Feb 18. Regardless of the party labels and promises, the feudal power will endure in the name of democracy. The choices remain narrow for Pakistanis: Choose between military and the feudal class. There is no third choice as long as the middle class remains small and unable to exert any real influence. The only hope for real democracy lies in continued robust growth of the middle class over an extended period of time of another decade or two. There are no guarantees that feudal rulers will permit that.

Who Owns Pakistan?

A friend of mine recently sent me a book titled "Who Owns Pakistan?" by Mr. Shahid-ur-Rahman. My first impressions and commentary after scanning this book are as follows:

First Impressions:
This seems to be a well-researched work by the author on a subject that has received very little independent scholarly attention. While it singles out Z.A. Bhutto's nationalization in the 1970s as the biggest culprit, it also includes a good description of how industrialization was stymied in Pakistan by successive governments while feudal rulers continued to take their toll on any middle class growth essential for civil society and democracy. The author argues that the Bhutto era nationalization has left such "deep scars on the psyche" of Pakistani industrialists that, to this day, these industrialists are not willing to make long-term investments in big industrial projects with long gestation periods. The military governments have, in fact, been more pro-industrialization because the military elite benefits from the manufacturing sector as much much as it does from real estate and agriculture sectors.

Top 11 Groups of Companies Account For 35% of Karachi Stock Exchange Market Cap

Comparisons with India:
Whenever we discuss Pakistan, comparisons with India are inevitable because we have such a long shared history and both countries became independent at the same time. Looking at the Indian experience, the Indian Congress governments were not particularly friendly to industries as depicted well in the Bollywood movie "Guru" based on the life of Dhirubhai Ambani. The semi-literate Ambani built a multi-billion dollar empire called Reliance Industries in India. However, Congress and Nehru were really hostile to the feudal system and brought it down almost immediately after independence in 1947 through
real and extensive land reform that reduced individual and family land
holdings to a few acres each. In spite of his deeply held socialist beliefs, Nehru was a pragmatic leader and believed in industrialization. He recognized that India needed a strong higher education system to support industrialization. The renowned IIT system was, therefore, started in 1951 by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Education Minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad with the first IIT in Kharagpur inaugurated by Maulana Azad on Aug 18, 1951. Maulana Azad was also the person who brought Birla and Nehru together after Liaquat Ali Khan as Finance Minister in 1938 started investigating Birla for his cash contributions to the Congress party. Recognizing the contributions of Birla and Tata to Congress in the struggle for India's independence, Nehru gave special treatment to both of the industrialists and asked them to help in India's industrialization.

Actions by Nehru and Congress in India were in sharp contrast to the policies pursued in Pakistan. There was no strategic thinking or vision to start anything like the IIT system in India or to reach out to the industrialists who chose to come to Pakistan. Instead, these policies allowed thousands of acres of land in the hands of a few Pakistani feudal families such as the Jatois and the military elite while Pakistan's leader ZA Bhutto presided over the destruction of the nascent industrial sector that had just started to take off under President Ayub in the 1960s. Like Tata & Birla, some of the Pakistani industrialists such as the Habibs and the Haroons helped in Pakistan's independence movement and, immediately after independence, Habib Bank had bailed out Pakistan Government with a huge loan in its early days to cover its budget deficit. However, Bhutto showed no recognition of their help during his nationalization campaign in the 1970s. All of Bhutto's favors were reserved for his feudal colleagues who assumed leadership positions in his administration. These are the conditions under which Pakistan could not move from feudal to industrial society and the middle class could not grow to sufficient strength to demand real democracy based on rule of law.

Privatization in Pakistan:
Nationalization had finally been recognized as a failure in Pakistan when Benazir Bhutto became prime minister in the early 1990s. During the two terms each of Benazir and Sharif, each embarked on rolling back ZA Bhutto-era nationalization by privatizing hundreds of industrial units. However, the privatization efforts by both have now been documented by author Shahid-ur-Rahman to be marred by massive corruption involving a giveaway of multi-million rupee units for the token prices of a few rupees. The sales of these units did not make even a small dent in the national debt.

Pakistan Under Gen Musharraf:
Since "Who Owns Pakistan" was published in 1999, the last eight years under Gen Musharraf have seen the return to annual economic growth of 6-8% with significant new domestic and foreign investment in industries, particularly telecommunications, financial services and infrastructure development. Pakistan's GDP has more than doubled. The number of telephones has soared to 50 million from a mere 600,000 six years ago. The privatization of banks has led to a huge increase in the production and sales of cars, motorcycles and, perhaps most important, TV sets. From a strictly economic standpoint, military rule in Pakistan appears to have been a lesser evil. But, regardless of what one might think about the merits of military rule, Pakistan has seen significant growth under General Musharraf and his hand-picked Prime Minister Mr. Shaukat Aziz. By all accounts, the ranks of the middle class have been swelling in Pakistan during Gen Musharraf's rule. According to Tara Vishwanath, the World Bank's lead economist for South Asia, about 5% of Pakistanis have moved from the poor to the middle class in three years from 2001-2004, the most recent figures available. As expected, the prospering middle class has demanded more than just economic benefits. The middle class is now demanding democratic reform that bodes well for Pakistan in the long run. However, this class is still small relative to the population in Pakistan. It just needs to be cognizant that impatience on its part can roll back the gains made in the last eight years.
The Higher Education Commission under Dr. Ata-ur-Rahman Khan has seen a tremendous increase in HEC budgets with the opening of dozens of new universities and large number of scholarships to study abroad. My hope is that, if the economic, education and industrial growth continues at the current pace for another decade, we can expect a much larger, more powerful middle class to emerge that will successfully challenge the feudal and military rule in the not-too-distant future in Pakistan. We might even see real land reform at some point to free the unwashed masses in rural and tribal Pakistan. Feudal system might even fizzle out by itself as the vast landholdings get distributed among the feudal offsprings over the next couple of generations.

The Indian Exception:
Among the less-developed nations in Asia and Africa such as India and Pakistan, India remains a unique example of a country that has only partially industrialized but it remains largely democratic in spite of the majority of its people not being served well by its successive governments. There seems to be only one plausible explanation for the Indian exception as a democracy: India's sheer size and diversity make it very difficult for any military to govern it but I think the early and effective land reform in India has been one of the key factors in its ability to free the average people who chose to sustain democratic institutions over other alternatives. With the recent emergence of a powerful middle class in India, India's democracy has been further strengthened.

Conclusion:
Pakistan remains decades behind India in establishing democratic institutions by failing to limit the power of the feudal lords,the military generals and the clerics.
The recent economic growth has helped propel the middle class as evidenced by the growth of the media and the powerful resistance to military rule by the civil society including the lawyers, the media and various NGOs. However, the Pakistani middle class is still relatively small to bring about a fundamental change. It needs to grow at the current pace for at least another decade. The challenge for India is to enable sharing of its new-found wealth and opportunities with the rural folks who have not yet participated in India’s progress.