Quote:

Originally Posted by azeegum Well, not digressing into any other discussion, I will stick to the issue of land reforms here. Like I said the land reforms in Pakistan have a long and somewhat chequered history. The major reforms took place in three stages: the first during Ayub Khan's martial law in 1959 and other two during ZAB's regime in 1970s. According to the legislation passed by Ayub Khan which was the first major piece of legislation concerning land reforms in Pakistan- the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959 (Regulation 64 of 1959), no individual could own more than 500 acres of irrigated and 1,000 acres of un-irrigated land or a maximum of 36,000 Produce Index Units (PIU), whichever was greater. It further allowed that land be redistributed amongst tenants and others. In addition, the regulation contained provisions which provided for security of tenants as well as for preventing the subdivision of land holdings. Whereas ZAB realizing that the land reforms were inadequate, he brought two major reforms. The salient features were that no individual holdings were to be in excess of 150 acres of irrigated land or 300 of un-irrigated land, or irrigated and un-irrigated land the aggregate area of which exceeded 150 acres of irrigated land (one acre of irrigated land being reckoned as the equivalent of two acres of un-irrigated land), or an area equivalent to 15,000 PIU of land, whichever was greater. The reforms also provided for excess land to be surrendered and utilised for the benefit of tenants shown to be in the process of cultivating it. Furthermore, these reforms have suffered a great controversy in past. They have been alleged by opponents that they were un-Islamic and that they infringed on the right to own, use and enjoy property as protected by the constitution. Even when the matter was brought to Supreme Court it declared that the land reforms were against Islamic injunctions and unconstitutional. In reality, these reforms were noticed to have not much impact on rural society because the feudal lobby, well-entrenched in state structure and society, managed to hamper implementation. Unfortunately, the reforms were nullified, with the rich landowners continuing to control all levers of state power and society. Their power and greed can be observed in their shamefaced refusal to pay tax on agricultural income, while making the middle and lower classes pay taxes through their noses. Thus the so-called clique of landlords succeeded in maintaining the socio-economic status quo. Now after a long time MQM has came up with a bill concerning land reforms in year 2010. It is again believed that land reforms are again on our national agenda through the bill proposed by MQM. The following are the features of the said bill: According to the bill, an individual ( not a family ) as a unit of ownership, can own not more than 30 irrigated and/or 54 un-irrigated acres of land . The bill does not apply to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. All land within the territorial limits of provinces, whether owned or leased or occupied or tenanted or encumbered or mortgaged with or without possession by any person, be resumed in the name of the provincial government. However, it says that land that falls within the limits of ‘economic holding’, as well as that held by registered charitable trusts and waqfs, shall be exempt from redistribution. Owners of land that is expropriated by the government shall be paid compensation at such rates per acre as may be determined by the commission. Each landless family of the cultivator or tenant or small land owner shall be granted land out of the land that has been seized. Priority would be given to landless cultivators followed by landless tenants and small landowners. Families that are granted land or have retained it may form cooperative farming societies. However, cooperative farming society may be formed by not more than three families. In view of the foregoing features, how do you compare it with the other three land reforms made in Past? Let us discuss it here... I have numbered your questions for the convenience of understanding and answered as follows: 1. Well, an equitable distribution of land is integral to democracy, if Pakistan is to be compared with other developed countries which have shown great success in land administration. But do you think we are a democratic nation or we can be one? In my view, we are caught between the two- Islam and democracy, with a wish to have it on both ways. On the hand we would like to catch up with modernity and other hand hand do not delink from Islam all the way, hence an unclear vision. 2. IK's stance carry weight because one of the major reasons why the land reforms have failed is that the only thing these land reforms succeeded in doing was to render the integrity of rural land-ownership documents meaningless. On paper, the biggest landowners do not possess more than a few hundred acres. So computerizing the whole record might work. I am not wary of its technicality though. So it's just an idea on my part... PS: I did not quote the other part of your post, of your stance on two-nation theory and duplicity of attitude of Pakistani nation, because we would stumble into a different discussion and digress from what should be focused... Regards,

• Martin luther was a revoilutionary who stood for individual land holdings .These ideas were taken up .pakistan also needed these intellectuals who will bring change not corrupt politician.

• Kal Marx also pioneered the same and said ,religion is opiate of mankind .He was very true becasue Monks ,friars are land owners and looted people. This has created atheist sect and kal marx was also athiest .If we compare it with pakistan or in South Asia sensing us we are late comers and idle and talktive.we believe in rehtoric ,not in practical impilcations .

• pakistan`s land had been divided by britishers in to A and B areas. "A" were less dense ,thus owned by English and "B" was granted as Inam /jagir to persons who showed their loyalties towards them .

• Mmutaz doltana ,first initiated land reforms and up-holded committe and Ayub ,civil matial adminstator ,ZAB also reduced possession of lands form 500-1000 acres and then 300-150 acres based on irrigatied and non- irrigated lands.Ayub did it by introducing green revolution but this revolution is seems to be pice-meal .Nothing constructive happen rather 22 families formed oligarichiac form of government .This furter detriorated the peasentry condition . In agro-sector technocrats are needed which policized the production of land but Ayub did it by divivdin land into large and small farms .what a joke rulers did toward commons and we are un-aware !!!

• These land reforms under 1959 qnd 1972 act failed to equalize the distribution of wealth .that`s why middle class in pakistan is rare .we have two classes ;upper and lower and chunks of middle are present which are negligible because they prefer to migrate abraod.you have mentioned during zia `s era, litigants raised issue that reforms were un-Islamic .so what was that clause or reforms which are ascribed un-constitutional?? tell me.

• I do not want to indulge in IK nefarious designs who belive in the philosphy of diamond cuts diamond or "janwer ko marney ke liye janwer banan parta he" this philosphy is quite evitable when he employed feuds and corrupt people who had hindered reforms in parliament.

• why consensus of opinion regarding any matter is`nt there like past . Asma jehangir ,previous president of supreme cout bar association raised issue regading consensus of opinion .when any bill is proposed some says it un-islamic and some says it is against democracy and minoriies `s rights are not granted

• you said " we are caught up in Islam and democracy " so do you think Islam and democracy are quite different terms? then what people call this term as Islamic democracy??

• what do you mean by co-operative society act .lands in paksitan have diifernt owners.one is owned by single family ,other is from same birade and third form is in which different families are holding land of particular territory . do you mean by co-opearive society act? what is coherence of this term with land reforms.sorry I am oblivious of these societies and act .

• pakistan `s land in swat ,dir ,chitral ,balochistan B area( khan of kalat.makran region and lasbela land) and majority of sind area is in hand of jagirdars and these jagirdars are selling precious land to CIA contractors as well as multi-national comapnies withou pakistani government permit .so how this step is justified only on the groumds baloch are deprived people and they are allowed to do what they want .

• women in sind and balochistan are married with Quran e pak to for thier inheriditary holdings and these holdings personalised our political system.that`s why person at unit -level have more powers rather at provincial level .military men did this and supported landlords in the name local govenment system and I hate miltary and what bad they had done .This government is corrupt but at least it is doing something good which is not being highlighted by media in order to oust it from office and private channels for their ratings are dependent on multi-corporates .so these corporates are dictating .

• why pakistan is poor in govenance and managment inspite of privitization .because privitized land or other things are not being sold domestically to common people but to foreigners.so how middle class can emerge ? because we says privitization is only solution for the betterment of commom people .but these land is being leased and sold to cor-porates not to common man.we are slave and will remain becuase we are not ready to shape our fate .

• LAW regarding waqf in pakistan should be re-pealed because it support ill-legal holding in case when land would be privitized .becasues this law enable fief-holders to transform land to other family members through out their life .this meant for their parasitic life whic is root-cause of corrution in pakistan and also gift `s law should be re-pealed according to the need of time .These laws have and had been manipulated by jagirdars .

• lastly ,I am saying about laws and system-change but how the consensus can be derived in pakstan parliament is a major issue which saqib sherani has pointed in his article and I want to elongated this clause in order to probe and ponder why?????