@Kashif. you have proven urself that feudalism exits in the country.
There are landlords who have villas in khi, isb and dubai and own thousands of acres of land in Sindh and Punjab. Rnt they feudals?

If the feudalism in pakistan is the topic. we ll have to come to it through different angles....

Feudalism in Pakistan
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
I sometimes wonder if what Pakistan doesn’t really need is a good dose of land reform to break up feudal power. The extraordinary inequities in Pakistan seem not only unjust but also an impediment to both economic growth and national consensus.

For those who haven’t been to Pakistan, you 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.

Dwight Perkins, the great Harvard economist of development, argued that a crucial factor in the rise of East Asia was the land reform and division in countries like Japan and South Korea after World War II, creating a more equal society. (In Japan, this was done under U.S. auspices: we were much more socialist outside our country than in it.) Likewise, India had its own land reform in 1953, but Pakistan was left out.

I’ve often focused on education as the greatest need for Pakistan, but even there the feudal structure is replicated. There are first-rate schools in English for the elite, second-rate schools for the strivers, and execrable schools for the masses. At the bad schools, teachers don’t even bother to show up. This highly stratified system tends to perpetuate an ossified economic and social structure, and creates less room for the country to innovate and build or use human capital.

But I’m a novice here. Those of you who know Pakistan much better than I — what do you think? Is the feudal land structure a major part of the problem? And if so, is it so entrenched that it’s not even worth dreaming of land reform? Is it more feasible to chip away at the feudal structure by broadening education? I’m all ears. Let me know what you think.

Dr. Mehnaz Fatima

Under the original feudal system, a vassal or a feudal tenant would hold land and would in return perform military duties for an overlord. The overlord would, in turn, provide protection and land tenure to the tenant. The overlord would pledge allegiance to a king. Land tenures of the lesser lords were thus guaranteed. The communities remained subservient to the vassals and the overlords. If some communities still have no better option other than servile existence under big landlords, it can be safely concluded that the world has yet to get rid of "feudalism" or feudal ways and practices. Surely, in Pakistan, it remains a daunting challenge.

Feudal system existed in Europe as much as it did in Japan. In England, it met with stiff resistance from its institutions as they developed. Industry rose on the ashes of feudalism. France is known for entrenched feudalism until their revolution. Modernization in France could not be conceived to coexist with feudalism. The French Revolution commenced by putting an end to feudalism by decree. It changed the structure of the society so as to make it growth- and development-oriented.
As the Philadelphia Convention met to draw up the American Constitution in 1787, France was ripe for a revolution. King Louis XVI of France had financed the American War of Independence against the British. France almost reached the verge of bankruptcy as, "those with the capacity to pay taxes failed to bear their share of the burden." The French King summoned the Assembly of Notables (aristocrats) requesting them to abandon some of their fiscal privileges. The Notables resisted and called for summoning of the Estates General (assembly) to deal with the fiscal crisis. The Estates General comprised three estates, namely, the clergy, the aristocracy, and the rest. When the Estates General met, the Third Estate, comprising the rest, withdrew and declared itself the National Assembly competent to give a new constitution to France. The fiscal crisis was thus viewed against the larger backdrop of the structure of the French society wherein the privileged few enjoyed tax privileges as the country was driven to bankruptcy. The fiscal crisis could not be addressed in 18th century France unless the structure of the society was changed. For, if the privileged were not willing to part with their privileges, then the privileged had to go. So it was ruled in 18th century France.

In 21st century Pakistan, the privileged argue that there privileges and the socio-economic hardships of the underprivileged are both a myth. The people of this country are neither dense nor dumb. Many similarities emerge as we look back at the economic development path of the developed West. All those aware of Pakistan's fiscal crisis and its distorted structures of politico-economic power would further know where the similarities end. The similarity ends when we display a lack of courage and will-power to effect change for the better.

Bastille was demolished on July 14, 1789 and feudalism was abolished on August 4, 1789 through a series of "Decrees Abolishing the Feudal System." The opening words were, "The National Assembly abolishes the feudal regime entirely ....." The decrees did away with many kinds of manorial obligations to begin with. The decrees also abolished special tax privileges and opened all offices to all citizens "without distinction of birth." Cornerstone to build a modern France had been laid.
The second important decree was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen passed late August 1789. The second decree came on the heels of the first decree about abolishing feudalism and privileges. The decrees were thus logically sequenced. Without the first one, the second would have been meaningless.

The French Revolution did not end in the year it started. Rather, the Revolution kept consolidating itself even in the 19th century until the Napoleonic era. Even though Napoleon turned despotic, the ideals of the Revolution were pushed forward forcefully on nearly every front in his era. These ideas were also exported to Italy, Spain, and Prussia. Germany would then provide further intellectual thrust to the ideals of the enlightenment. Unfortunately, these ideas have yet to be assimilated and internalized by us.
We remain backward as we try to build a modern society on the traditional repugnant value system most prevalent in the countryside from where it also gets exported to the urban so-called modern sector. Thanks to this age of rapid and effective communication, one is saved the agony of personally witnessing the oppression in the villages. There is enough evidence available about life in rural areas on the basis of which serious students of economics can draw the sad conclusions from which the big farm lords wish to look the other way. It is true that behaviour and attitudes in other sectors of the economy are also repugnant in many ways. However, one needs to determine not just the "sources" of ills in the society but rather the "causes" of them. If a cause-effect tree is constructed, it will converge to the major problem identified way back in 1789 by none other than the French which is "feudalism." Later in the 20th century, it was identified by the Japanese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese, and the Chinese as soon as they embarked on development and modernization. However, China is ignored by many in this country due to its totalitarian political disposition. We may then travel Westward and find a case in point in the liberated France which exported the idea to other parts of Europe.

Until such time that the root cause is addressed in Pakistan, it would be very difficult to reform the rest of the society. Rather, it is impossible to reform if the major sector of agriculture or big agriculturists continue to occupy the privileged status that they do. They continue to wield the same amount of power as they did when their sector contributed over 40 per cent to the GDP in the 1950s and the 1960s. They might well know that their sector's contribution to the GDP stands declined to about 25 per cent in the decade of the 1990s. It is, therefore, not a "predominant factor" as still imagined by some of them. They should not, therefore, be allowed to continue to dominate the value system which some of them think is their birth right by virtue of the sector's significance in the economy.

Nonetheless, the rural economy remains significant as it is still home to 67 per cent of the country's population. With a declining GDP share, the misery of the multitude can only be expected to increase unless drastic land and agrarian reforms are undertaken. It is common knowledge that even though "begaar" is abolished, the tiller barely subsists. The condition of socio- economic or human rights remains pathetic on which enough data have been collected by many development centres at least one of which works under the auspices of the UN. There is enough empirical evidence already in support of the fact that the number of displaced and landless peasants is rising. This is creating pressure on urban areas due to influx of rural migrants. To argue the above facts, data, and actual trends is to be unreasonable and irrational.

The matter, however, needs to be addressed whenever status quo is supported. Otherwise, it would only reinforce the already existing barriers to reform. As soon as the sentiment for meaningful land reforms caught on in the country recently, big landlords tried to project "feudalism" as a myth. It would be a fantasy to assume that the country is not plagued with a feudal mindset. Some of the ills found in other sectors of the economy are actually a manifestation of this same mindset exported from the countryside to the rest of the economy. Absentee landlords, living off the wealth generated on the soil tilled by subsisting tenants, served as "role models." The societal goals got transformed to maximizing personal material gain and personal power only. These goals were sought increasingly in other sectors, be it industry or bureaucracy. The undesirable norms and attitudes caught on. These trends are now being used to justify oppression in that same agricultural sector from which they were exported in the first place. The vicious circle ought to be broken rather than justified. The importance of parallel attempts notwithstanding, first attempts should then be made in the sector from which these anti-developmental attitudes originated.

These attitudes have also been the biggest roadblock to the development of institutions in the country. As this sector remains virtually exempt from fiscal and other socio-economic obligations, other sectors find their legal fiscal and administrative requirements discriminating. Consequently, they are fulfilled only partially, if at all. Profitability in agricultural sector remains a question mark as the sector has made itself impervious. The luxurious lifestyles of big agriculturists belie their claims about economic hardships. Other sectors then consider it not-so-illegitimate to underreport incomes. The taxation structure remains horizontally iniquitous. Agriculturists complain of multiplicity of taxes and try to remain exempt from income taxation. Other sectors and salaried individuals too have to pay a number of taxes but their incomes remain heavily taxed. Despite heavy taxation, fiscal and economic problems have compounded because, inter alia, the economic managers can no longer justify the privileged status of agriculture. It is now even allowed market prices for output. The issue of implicit taxation exists no longer. But the privileges do!

Can a modern economy be constructed with attitudes and norms that discourage enterprise, seek rents rather than healthy normal profits, and which encourage distribution in favour of a few powerful rather than all the input providers? Economic history answers in the negative!

Another Distinct Analysis on Feudalism
by Sharif M Shuja

Pakistan has spent 25 out of 51 years under military rule. General Pervez Musharraf, the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) in a coup took power on October l2, 1999. He declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution and the National Assembly, and appointed himself chief executive. He also ensured by special decree that his actions could not be challenged by any court of law. In doing so, he virtually imposed martial law. But by not sacking President Rafiq Tarar or dismissing the Assembly, he retained the option of ushering in a civilian rule of his choice when he had things under his control.

It seems the coup was not the result of meticulous planning by the military, but rather an immediate reaction to threats to its own interests. General Musharraf was on a plane from Sri Lanka bound for Karachi when Nawaz Sharif fired him and appointed Lt General Khwaja Ziauddin, the head of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as the Chief of the Army Staff, with the anticipation that the army would accept this reshuffle. But they were wrong. So when Nawaz tried to oust General Musharraf, the general ousted him instead. Units loyal to Musharraf took over the TV station, airports, arrested Nawaz Sharif, his brother Shahbaz and Lt General Khwaja Ziauddin.

The key men were Lt General Mohammed Aziz, the chief of the general staff, and, most crucially, Lt General Mahmood Ahmed, who commands the army's Tenth Corps stationed close to Islamabad. It was Ahmed's troops who stormed the gates of the PTV Centre and shut down the station.

The people of Pakistan seemed genuinely relieved that the Government had fallen and that the military had taken control - an indication of just how unpopular Nawaz Sharif had become. In the eastern city of Lahore, where support for Sharif was considered strongest, there were demonstrations in favour of the army takeover, people cheered in the streets and burnt pictures of Nawaz.

The political turmoil in Pakistan was caused, in the view of many, by not only a lack of governmental accountability but also by corruption at the highest level of administration.

Pakistan has long been run by such dreadful governments. It appears to suggest that Nawaz Sharif hesitated to accept the notion that development requires good governance, meaning open, transparent and accountable public institutions. Whereas previous governments were chaotic in their awfulness, this one under Nawaz Sharif has turned out to be systematic.

He was democratically elected but he is not a democrat. His basic instincts were dictatorial not democratic. He acted more like a despot after his landslide election victory in 1997. Over the past few years he picked off individuals and institutions that he believed posed any threat to his own power.

Dissent within his party was suppressed. He amended the Constitution to strip the President of the power to remove him and ousted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Reversing the traditional balance of power between the military and civilian government, Nawaz Sharif has seen off an army chief, General Jehangir Karamat, and then tried to push through a constitutional amendment that would give him sweeping powers to ignore Pakistan's legislature and provincial governments in the name of Islamisation.

The judiciary at first tried to check Mr Sharif, but later gave up. When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sajjad Ali Shah took the President's side in 1997, a mob from Mr Sharif's party stormed the Supreme Court and Mr Sharif sacked Mr Shah.

Then he turned on the press. His Government embarked on a campaign of harassment and intimidation against those members of the press who questioned his misuse of power. For example, in mid-1999, the Jang Group of newspapers had its bank accounts frozen and its newsprint confiscated. Najam Sethi, the publisher and editor of another newspaper, Friday Times, was held without charge. All copies of the Friday Times were seized, and its website has been jammed.

The roots of Pakistan's political crisis go deep beyond the October 99 coup. It is in the nature of the feudal system and politics in Pakistan.

Feudal mentality ;

Throughout history, feudalism has appeared in different forms. The feudal prototype in Pakistan consists of landlords with large joint families possessing hundreds or even thousands of acres of land. They seldom make any direct contribution to agricultural production. Instead, all work is done by peasants or tenants who live at subsistence level.

The landlord, by virtue of his ownership and control of such vast amounts of land and human resources, is powerful enough to influence the distribution of water, fertilisers, tractor permits and agricultural credit and, consequently exercises considerable influence over the revenue, police and judicial administration of the area. The landlord is, thus, lord and master. Such absolute power can easily corrupt, and it is no wonder that the feudal system there is humanly degrading.

The system, which some critics say is parasitical at its very root, induces a state of mind which may be called the feudal mentality. This can be defined as an attitude of selfishness and arrogance on the part of the landlords. It is all attitude nurtured by excessive wealth and power, while honesty, justice, love of learning and respect for the law have all but disappeared. Having such a mentality, when members of feudal families obtain responsible positions in civil service, business, industry and politics, their influence is multiplied in all directions. Indeed the worsening moral, social, economic and political crisis facing this country can be attributed mainly to the powerful feudal influences operating there.

Almost half of Pakistan's Gross National Product and the bulk of its export earnings are derived primarily from the agricultural sector controlled by a few thousand feudal families. Armed with a monopoly of economic power, they easily pre-empted political power.

To begin with, the Pakistan Muslim League, the party laying Pakistan's foundation 53 years ago, was almost wholly dominated by feudal lords such as the Zamindars, Jagirdars, Nawabs, Nawabzadas and Sardars, the sole exception being the Jinnahs. Pakistan's major political parties are feudal-oriented, and more than two-thirds of the National Assembly (Lower House) is composed of this class. Besides, most of the key executive posts in the provinces are held by them.

Through the 50s and the 60s the feudal families retained control over national affairs through the bureaucracy and the armed forces. Later on in 1972, they assumed direct power and retained it until the military regained power recently. Thus, any political observer can see that this oligarchy, albeit led by and composed of different men at different times, has been in power since Pakistan's inception.

Socio-economic effect;

In the agrarian sector, it is the landowner who is excluded from the production process, while in industry, domestic technology is almost absent or kept at bay. Industrialisation over the past five decades has, to a large extent, been established and operated with foreign capital, technology and raw materials. As a result, native technology has remained stagnant and the rest of the economy is not integrated with industry.

Today, Pakistan depends mostly on foreign aid for industrial raw materials and spare parts. This dependence has caused severe weakness to its economy. Coupled with these shortcomings, nationalisation in the industrial sector has brought further injuries. Many industries, after nationalisation, suffered substantially. Consequently, the industrial policy has not only failed to create a sound industrial base and employment opportunities, but has instead increased unemployment.

In this connection, it can be pointed out that while much has been said against the families who accumulated wealth, there was little actually done against such a system. In such a system, a vast income-differential also exists which adversely affects Pakistan's balance of payments. One knows that higher income invariably leads to a greater tendency to import.

An analysis of an import bill would reveal that a substantial proportion of goods consists of non-essential consumer and luxury items. For example, a significant percentage of imported medicines consisting of vitamins and night pills for the fastidious rich rather than to combat or prevent disease. Further, the demand for luxury household appliances and electronic equipment proved to be so great that the ban on their importation was ineffective. These imports have led to international balance of payment deficits which foreign aid is attempting to bridge. As a result Pakistan's economy today is as aid-oriented as it was 10 or 20 years ago. It has thus continued its downward spiral.



Political effects;

The influence of feudalism has been most predominant in the political sphere. As stated earlier, Pakistan's administrative and political agencies are almost totally controlled at the higher echelons by feudal lords. Just as the salt in Pakistan's soil has retarded the growth of crops and vegetables, the feudal influence in the country's political soil has hindered the growth of democracy.

The relationship between the feudal mentality and the authoritarian tendency in Pakistan's political life is not difficult to perceive. Where feudal lords occupy positions as political executives, they tend to consider the country as their property and the citizens as their subjects.

Authoritarianism is thus entrained in the feudal personality and is as essential to the feudal system as oxygen is to human life. Freedom of thought and intellect, and freedom of speech and expression, invariably lead to the exposure of social inequities and injustices, mobilise public opinion and generate movements for establishing an egalitarian order.

Therefore, the first target of any feudal regime is the suppression of the press and academic institutions so as to give the regime the freedom to control, influence and manipulate to their own ends. A feudal regime, ultimately, may be conceived of as a regime of intellectual tyranny.

The political power of the feudal class is derived from their economic power, while their political power enables them to consolidate and expand their economic power. This combination has given them control over national affairs and enabled them to thwart democracy in maintaining their hegemony.

Reflecting on all this, one could be sympathetic to General Pervez Musharraf's claim of Nawaz Sheriff's Government being corrupt, since the majority of National Assembly members belong to the feudal class. One of the greatest factors that caused Nawaz Sharif's downfall was his mismanagement of statecraft. His Government was accused of authoritarian rule, hypocrisy, massive bribery and administrative failure.

Under Sharif's rule, Pakistan's bureaucracy, police and public services were so infested with corruption and political favouritism, and so starved of resources, that few Pakistanis expected anything from government except employment.

Will the army, which is now deciding Pakistan's fate, go the same way?

The army chief is certainly caught between a rock and a hard place. There are a number of reasons for returning Pakistan to constitutional rule as soon as possible. The most obvious is that world opinion is not in favour of the coup. Musharraf has to create an atmosphere that would encourage foreign investment in Pakistan. That would involve giving, dates for a possible election.

The Pakistani economy is basically reliant on a drip feed of foreign loans from multinational agencies, most notably the World Bank and the IMF. Both bodies have indicated that they are deeply concerned by the army takeover and are likely to withhold loans. Pakistan has a foreign debt of more than $30 billion and rapidly diminishing foreign currency reserves.



Note:The three of the writers and analysts have neutrally commented on the feudalism in pakistan. Not only its pros and cons, background and amneties but also the way towards it peaceful solution. It is enough for feudalism all aspects.

__________________
“The greatest discovery of all time is that a person can change his future by merely changing his attitude.”

yup
so what's the next topic?

__________________
"We overestimate next one or two years and we underestimate next ten years."

kashif
you are right that feudelism does not exist in Pakistan. actually the definition or the pre requisites for feudalism that you have mentioned are quite stereotyped that's why people are not understanding your point of view. feudelism is a term that has no definition it is an implied term. you and me can be feudal on one hand and on the other hand we can be the victim of crimes of feudals.it is all about mind set,one's way of thinking and nothing else. but it is confirmed for sure that in pakistan feudalism does not exist what exist is the bug of feudalism that is there in the mind of every person in the pakistan who wants to get benefit at the cost of other's happiness.and this is only form that exist in pakistan.

best of luck for your interview

Thanks for your wish madam!
Please give a important most tip if I go for "Advocating the devil" during my psychological tests or interview.

Regards,

__________________
"We overestimate next one or two years and we underestimate next ten years."

kashif
first it is good to know that you are bold enough to talk about devil and not only talk about him but also advocating him.nice idea.

it is better to reign in hell rather to be slave in heaven. it was the thinking of satan iblees when he denied to bow his head before Adam. atleast devil has the guts to stand even in front of Allah if he thinks he is right. above all he once decided that he will tempt people towards evil deeds and he has been determined enough to stick on his task. i think devil or more precisely satan is the best example of strong resolution and determination. if a person wants to be successful in his life he must have determination of Satan only then he will achieve his target. for this do not think that we are insulting our religion it is only an analysis of satan's charachter.and if we consider it without prejudice to our belief it will have positive effect on one's life. lessons out of satan's life

do what you want
if you are determined enough Allah will give you way to do whatever you want
do not sacrifice your dignity even you face loss
a man can be destroyed but not defeated

Thanks

Totally Agreed..

Once again thanks for your guidance and motivational words. Keep praying, inshaAllah, I would be your junior soon

Cheers!

__________________
"We overestimate next one or two years and we underestimate next ten years."

your enthusiasm shows that you will certainly qualify your final exam. my best wishes are with you and hope you will soon be my junior.