Future of Feudalism in Pakistan

Future of Feudalism In Pakistan
Role of Global capital

Enlightened Pakistani expatriates in the USA have developed a consensus that the genesis of what ails Pakistan can be traced to the feudal system our former colonial masters imposed on India The class remained true to their “creators”. They continued to throw crumbs to the landowners till the very end of their rule. The colonizers declared them and their vassals martial race, and used them against their own countrymen for sabotage of the national movement. They also used them to fight the inter-imperial wars all over the world.
The feudal lords treated their peasants worse than one would a slave, forcing them to work in their homes with out any payment, treating the latter’s females as keeps. In the tribal regions the chief used his “seigniorial” right to spend the first night with any bride that took his fancy. The tillers of the land did the owners bidding and when Indians won a semblance of representative governments, the former served as a vote bank .
The inherent weakness of the political party of the Muslims was that, with a few honorable exceptions, the progeny of the same bunch of “traitors” led it.
A special class of feudals is worthy of note. These are hereditary Pirs .
Muslims were historically handicapped as well. They had governed India for a millennium before they had lost power to the British. They had wielded the sword, given orders and framed laws. (Lately they had given up on that too, living a hedonistic life and carrying on the momentum generated over centuries) All trade, commerce, finance and administration had been left to Hindu business class. The latter had honed their political skills and were ready to offer services to the new rulers. That was their ticket to continued prosperity. The British having wrested power from Muslims naturally discriminated against them and patronized the Hindus. After 1857 Muslims were not just discriminated against; they were actively victimized. They might have been red-Indianised but for their large numbers and a few souls who were able to analyze the situation critically and came to the rational conclusion that the only escape for them was through education and collaboration with the rulers. If the choice is between living on reservations and working for your victor, few will opt for the former.
The reformists did not simply intend to create a collaborationist class. They meant to bide their time, regain vitality and overthrow the Raj when the time was ripe. A lot of nationalist Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder with their Hindu compatriots against the British. Their ranks included a brilliant young lawyer- MA Jinnah. The Raj was not content sitting on its hands either, and developed a corp. of fifth columnists, prominent among them the feudal lords and civil servants. When the colonizers could no longer with stand the assault of independence movement, they started favoring the Muslims. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, knew this and tried his best to avoid partition of the country. He held on to the concept of a Con-Federal structure with full autonomy to the constituent units. The only subjects the center would control would be defense, foreign affairs, and communications, with further safe guards such that the majority could not take a critical decision with out concurrence of the majority of the minority members of the central assembly. He could not accept a federal structure because he knew that in addition to an adverse 3:1 ratio in population, he was burdened with the onus of leading a mass of weak reeds.
But even Jinnah, past master though he was of tactics and adept at utilizing the mistakes of opponents to his advantage, could not over come the combine of British chicanery, the alienation caused by Gandhi introducing Hindu imagery and the illusion of Ram Raj into politics, overweening ambition of Nehru, the shortsightedness and low self image of Indian National congress leaders who would not accept a weak center. In spite of the support of the viceroy, Patel and Nehru had not been able to get the better of Liaquat and his cohorts in the interim cabinet. Jinnah had out maneuvered them at every stage and they were frightened out of their wits of the possibility of the latter joining the cabinet in independent India. They were, in any case confidant or had deluded themselves into believing that Pakistan would collapse and fall in their lap as an over ripe apple. A few days after independence Patel made a speech that it was a matter of weeks or at the most a few months, the country will collapse and we will take them back on our terms and not Jinnah’s. Jinnah had to accept " a moth eaten Pakistan", moth eaten to enervate it and sow the seeds of perpetual dissension between the two newly independent countries with no experience of self government- all to the specifications of Imperial design. That led the two nations at each other's throat, whose priority should have been development of social services, jobs, industry and education.
There are credible reasons to believe that Jinnah did not envisage a permanent state of alienation between the two countries. He willed most of his assets to charitable institutions in India. He did not even sell his house in Bombay, now valued at twenty million US dollars.
India inherited the machinery of established Government, a fairly advanced infra structure, a vibrant entrepreneur'ial class, a much larger and developed economic base, and a truly bourgeois national movement and could cope much better with the dislocation and trauma of partition. Pakistan on the contrary was bereft of developed resources, administrative machinery or industry. It had a much smaller and little developed economic base. Its political party was feudal in character, not with standing Jinnah and a few Bombay and Bengali lawyers. Jinnah tried his best, openly declared that the country would not discriminate on the basis of caste or creed. He ordained separation of religion and state. But that was not to be. He died and his successors put him on a pedestal and expediently forgot his instructions.
The obscurantist Mullahs (in country and those who migrated from India), till yesterday vehement opponents of Pakistan (rank opportunists that they were, climbed on the bandwagon, and as the proverbial jackals started feeding on the trough. They also potentiated the feudal class and pronounced fatwas (religious edicts) against reforms such as civil rights, equal status for women etc. Their main thrust was, however, against land reforms, the domain of their benefactors. In 1991 A Maulana Taqi Usmani upholding the sanctity of private property in Islam declared ZAB’s land reforms repugnant to the teachings of the religion. In neighboring Afghanistan PDPA government tried to introduce land reforms but were unable to over come tribal and feudal opposition. The country led to believe that Soviet Union will inevitably support India and in the deluded vision that the West would balance any aid proffered to their rival and to offset the latter’s greater might, willingly fell into the fatal embrace of Neo-Imperialists. . (The slogan of Pakistan and Islam is in danger hamstrung the would be nationalists). India abolished the feudal system in 1948. The Eastern Wing of Pakistan abolished the system too about the same time India did, as most of the feudals there were Hindus. Feudal system still survives and thrives in what was then West Pakistan-now all of Pakistan
This should, hopefully define with sufficient clarity, the reason India and Pakistan took different paths, why army has ruled Pakistan for most of its existence and why the Indian army sharing the same British heritage has been subservient to the civilian authority.
Pakistanis in the country and expatriates differ on the emphasis they should lay on the various sections of the society for perpetuation of the core evils of violation of civil rights, subjugation of women and their status as commodity to be bartered for land or in exchange for blood money, weddings to the Quran, Honor killing, corruption, poverty, illiteracy, paucity of social services. Seventy five percent of the national budget is spent on debt servicing and armed forces, with less spent on health, education and job creation than by even the poorest of the third world countries. Correct attribution of the proportion of blame to the components of the evil Quad is of prime importance as adoption of a line of action is dependent on critical analysis. Just complaining about all the barbaric acts of the "democratically" approved Punchayat ordained rapes and murders, police, army, bureaucratic complicity in the crimes and the supine judiciary, corrupt political parties would not help much. Protest from the safe grounds of the USA will not have much impact either.
Let us take up the army first. Do we impute an independent class character to it? Army personnel are derived from all classes of the society though predominantly from a feudal/peasant base yet recruitment from urban bourgeoisie, bureaucrats classes especially in the officer corp. is significant. Progeny of lower middle class traders, clerks, teachers and such officials aspire to an armed forces commission. There may be an odd one in the lower ranks from the laborers/industrial workers, peons etc. Pathans and Punjabis supply most of the non-commissioned ranks with Sindhis and Baluchis conspicuously absent from both ranks. (Musa Khan and Kakar army chiefs in Ayub and NS time though hailing from Quetta were respectively ethnic Hazara and Pathan). They are put through a designed and deliberate metamorphosis; broken down, and built up again in the traditions of unquestioning obedience, and uniform reaction to any given set of circumstances. It is, of course a highly regimented body, where free thought is sedulously rooted out. Pakistan army is highly disciplined. All the successful coups have been from the above, with the Army chief at the helm. They obey the chief regardless of his ethnicity. The chief effectively sheds his ethnic culture. The armed forces are curiously enough a true reflection of the dominant society of the country.
Senior civil bureaucratic services of Pakistan are overwhelmingly of feudal derivation, with a little sprinkling of the progeny of urban bourgeoisie and a rare entrant from the other classes. (Professionals-Journalists, Doctors, Engineers, Accountants, Lawyers, Business graduates, Architects etc have a higher representation of the urban bourgeoisie than the other groups do).
Capitalists, not the ones metamorphosed from the feudals, have a quasi-national character. They are largely in service industries, dependent on and beholden to Global Corporations. Productive industries are very much in the nature of consumables like food, Cotton, Plastic, Rayon, Leather goods and china. Heavy industry is minimal. Industrial workers correspondingly lack substance. They are not cohesive, are heavily infiltrated by fifth columnists and are led by timeservers and easily controlled by the repressive machinery of the state.
A valid query would be that if the army, political leaders and bureaucrats all belong to the same class, why does the army suppress the politicians? The answer should not require the intelligence of a rocket scientist. Family feuds are much worse, and country cousins kill more frequently for share of the land, than urban ones do for money. Bloody feuds over Zar, Zan, Zameen (Money, Women and land, the traditional causes of friction) antedate industrial revolution. They decry each other for a greater share of the loot. Aslam Beg who took over as army chief after Zia died, went to the Supreme court and gave details of how he gave government funds to politicians during a non party election and furnished a list of the recipients. Asghar Khan prayed the court that the persons named be prosecuted. The Chief Justice wanted to take up the case. He was literally hounded out of the office by the gangsters of Nawaz. No government, civilian or military, has taken any except cosmetic steps to abolish the feudal system. Army has in fact become the largest industry, commercial and financial concern and the largest land and urban property owner (defense housing societies) in the country. Retired and active duty army officers serve as bureaucrats, deans, principals and vice-chancellors of educational institutions. For God's sake they even own tankers that supply water to Karachi homes! All they have to do is to appoint army Mullahs to mosques, madrassahs and shrines to complete the circle and become the evil Quad in one body. Symbiosis of the governing classes should be pretty obvious.
What recourse do the enlightened Pakistanis have?
The one advocated by civil libertarian-reformists would have us agitate, appeal to our over lords, encourage people in Pakistan to take out processions and if possible create law and order situation, and some how to force the Army to allow "free and fair" elections. Even if the concept of fair and free elections in Pakistan had any more validity than voting with a gun on their heads- remember the US line; if you do not vote against Sandinistas, we will make sure you will starve. In Pakistani context defying the feudal lord, Biradari, tribe and clan- even if the police and the bureaucrats were to abstain from bogus voting and stuffing ballots, not a likely scenario-the same bunch of nincompoops will return, who will only ask that their hands be allowed in the till too. We will simply be enlarging the number of guests at the feast of Jackals. They will be toothless jackals too. The army officers holding civilian jobs are not going back to barracks. Why should they? Remember it was a civilian Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef who handed over WAPDA to the Army. It was the civilian Prime Ministers father and daughter Bhutto who handed over law and order to the army. It was “democratic” ZAB, who by indiscriminately nationalizing all industry and commerce and handing them over to his cronies debilitated the nascent Capital and set it back for decades. That step alone revitalized feudalism . He imprisoned dissidents, curbed civil liberties and emasculated the press much more than any military dictator . Civilian power brokers will enrich themselves as they did under BB and Nawaz. They will pursue the same policies of privatizing everything at the behest of IMF and World Bank. They will let Global Capital control the very lives of the people, pushing cost of living so high that life would not be worth living. That appears to be the agenda of the International corporations.
We must not forget that except for the Ghazi of Kargil, all army chiefs were invited to take over by the civilians. Nawaz Sharif had an "overwhelming" mandate; over two third majority in the parliament. He had been successful in dislodging a Chief Justice, a Naval Chief and lo and behold even an army chief. But when push came to shove, no body raised a voice of protest when Musharraf sent him packing. No body went out on the streets. Most of his minions joined hands with the usurper. Benazir's PPP leaders, no doubt tired of political wilderness, also joined the ranks of collaborators .

Students are the most politically conscious section of Pakistani populace. They would not be taken in by the mentally challenged pansies masquerading as political leaders in Pakistan. They would not follow feckless cowards. The only problem with student led agitations is that they do not have the stamina for prolonged struggle. Radical left is littered with names of might have beens, Mantos, Sarwars, Hashmis, Kadris, Sher Afzals and Wadoods).
Pakistan's tragedy is that it never developed institutions. Every generation has to make its own mistakes and learn lesson anew. The left, dominated by communists, failed Pakistan with its internecine feuds. You could count them on fingers of two hands yet still broke into Russian/Chinese factions, were swept away like so much jetsam and flotsam and left progressives in the lurch. Politicians are so keen on regaining some measure of power, however unreal it may be that, that they are prepared to countenance, nay embrace Musharraf, if only he will take off his uniform. BB and NS only try to make sure that he will not smile at the other. This obsession with uniform can only be explained if we accept the contention that the politicos want only the semblance and not the reality of power. Benazir presents a precedent. She debased herself by begging for the blessing of General Aslam Beg, a collaborator of her father's murderer .
From the perspectives of expatriates all that a civilian Government would achieve would be that the hands of a relative of some and not the others will be on the till.
Should we opt for NGOs? Remember NGO's function as the covert arm of the Imperium, distracting attention from failure of the state to do its job. The edge of conflict is dulled. The march to revolution is slowed. The incentive to confront the jackals is diminished. But for the NGO band-aid people might rise in desperation. "Marta Na To Karta Kya" (roughly do or die).
We must not ignore the fact that most NGOs are funded by corporations. There is no free lunch. If you accept money, you follow the dicta. NGO's in South Asia are if any thing more beholden the US government the overt arm of Global Capital .
States have interests and not friends. Human rights are not even their medium high priority, even in their own country. Why would they put themselves out for Vani (barter of daughters), Gang Rape and honor killing in Pakistan? They condone even worse in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Indonesia. They will topple dictators only when the latter defy them, when they calculate that they can get away with it, over running Iraq, bombing Libya and Somalia, invading Granada and Panama, subverting Iran, Haiti, Honduras, Chile, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. They will only pay lip service to human rights when their strategic interests are not at stake; example North Korea. They will not even slap the wrists of tin pot dictators of client states. Banking on them is akin to living in a fool's paradise.
But we have to use the available instruments. We participated in Student union affairs, as it was the easily accessible vehicle at hand. While looking for a more dynamic way we should not discount the NGO path taking care that they do not hijack our agenda.
True and lasting social justice will be obtained through a political party of workers, the dispossessed and the politically aware intellectuals. Academic criticism of small groups of people over a period of time contributed significantly to mass and popular movements as happened in anti slavery, feminist and civil rights movements. We should do so with all the vigor at our command. Our rallies, protests and seminars might be worth it, if they resulted in heightened consciousness.
Let us, though, not forget that the movements were led by a vanguard with fire in their belly, and they were not funded by Governments. In any case no NGO has yet lighted the flame of an anti-establishment conflagration.
Does that leave us in a morass of ever deepening depression? Are south Asia, Mid East and Africa hopeless? Will Far East never emerge out of the slough of client statism? Will Palestinians be Red Indianised?
We live in a very small world and are no longer isolated. What ever affects one part of humanity has an impact on all of our species. The fate of Red Indians, indigenous people in New Zealand, Australia and the "primitive" tribes in Africa are, unfortunately, norms of history. Humans are believed to have dealt with near human Neanderthals in a similar manner. They became extinct. (Fascism is a throw back too. It tried to exterminate Jews. Zionists are ironically enough trying to follow suit.
But times have changed. There is hope. In the era of instant communications, the Imperium and its agents can not get away with what the Europeans, mainly the British, the pioneers of biological warfare, got away with, in the preceding several centuries. (In return for the hospitality, shelter and protection native Indians offered them, they gave their hosts blankets impregnated with small pox exudates. With no immunity, they died like flies). Poison gas was used by the British against the Iraqis post WWI. Churchill, in charge of the offensive openly declared that use of gas against inferior races was justifiable.
Palestinians and Bosnians have not been exterminated. They have, indeed, been transplanted, as the Jews did, to the West and give sustenance to the parent tree.
Historical process is on the side of the people of Pakistan. It and the rest of under developed world, is groaning under the burden of the Imperium and their toadies. They will progress from the current feudal/tribal, fascist dispensations to a Capitalist society. Democracy will follow. Remember, it took European capitalism several centuries to break the shackles of the Royalty-feudal combine; the latter actually helped the demise by fighting the former. Capitalism inevitably leads to exploitation of the workers. They will eventually rise, not with standing the insidious impact of reformers and half hearted social supports systems. Capitalists sense the impending conflict and throw crumbs; witness the welfarism in post depression USA, post WWII Europe and post civil rights reforms in the USA again. Social justice will inevitably prevail.
The problem with this scenario is that it will take a long time. An unfortunate aspect of attempts at short cuts is that they not been very successful. One was the late and not much lamented Soviet Union. But they did not faithfully follow their prophet. Marx envisioned a fully industrialized society with acute class conflict where workers will rise and annihilate the oppressors. Lenin and Trotsky and their cohorts did manage to wipe out the feudal-royal oppressors. But they did not have a substantial working class. Russia was any thing but industrialized. They had to, in the first place, overthrow the socialist Government, abolish all the socialist measures introduced by that Government and impose a dictatorship. The process was subverted by machinations of international capital, nearly annihilated by fascist onslaught It is a not true that socialism failed in the Soviet Union. It was never introduced there.
The other attempt at accelerating the historical process was Mao's revolution in China. China wan an agrarian society, ruled by feudal warlords engaged in incessant skirmishes. The country was in fiduciary bondage to imperial powers. Japanese aggression, take over by Chiang Kai Shek an under study of the colonizers and WWII, weakened the grip of the overlords. That gave Mao and his comrades a window of opportunity. They overcame the opposition. But they did not have an industrial base or workers either and had to impose a dictatorship as well. It had a more human face, though. Mao sent his opponents to farms rather than to gallows, as Stalin did.
The third rather more promising example is Cuba, which has so far been steadfast in a socialist path in spite of all the subversions and aggressions. It has inspired revolutionaries in Venezuela, Bolivia and many other countries.
A common thread that ran through all the "socialist" countries was that they overcame internal and external opposition, and made tremendous and fast headway in material progress. They were able to institute a welfare state, providing basic necessities, food, clothes, shelter, health care, education and jobs to all. That cannot be said of the richest and most developed countries. Capitalist democratic Russia had to withdraw all the social welfare supports. Capitalist countries were so frightened that third world countries would follow the development model of socialist countries that they poured aid into India to develop it as a showcase to rival China. This they did with obvious distaste, as they hated Nehru for his independent ways.
The current overwhelming trend at Globalization may be Marx's dream come true. In the last several centuries it has been the national capital, marauding the colonies and warring with each other for the spoils. All the European countries, not excluding even the lowly Portugal, boasted of vast territories in their possession. But the character of Capitalism is changing fast. Now a conglomeration of national capital is emerging. Like divine religions they do not recognize national boundaries. They do not even pay lip service to the concept of nationality. At one time they used to allow a "trickle" down to their own countrymen. They do not any more. The components of International Capital have always invested in all countries, Japanese in the USA, the USA in the UK and so on. Now they are taking over water, and other resources and the land all over the world. They have patents on crops and manufactories, and they own mineral rights everywhere. Client states are crushed under the burden of loans euphemistically called aid; they have to accept IMF and World Bank dicta-reduce subsidies, increase interest rates, take harsh austerity measures, augment foreign currency reserves and make the life of their citizens miserable. At the end of the day they force client governments to hand over control of natural resources. If any demur an explosion in the air, an insurgency, and if worse comes to the worst a coup will take care of them.
But what distinguishes Global Capitalism from national capitalism is that the former does not even pretend to be solicitous of the welfare of the people of the first world. The new mantra is out sourcing. They had to pay a living wage, health benefits, unemployment and pension to workers in the USA. General Motors paid an average of $28.00 an hour to its workers. They pay $4.00 an hour to a South American worker for doing the same job -with no fringe benefits. Delphi, a GM subsidiary would like its workers to accept $9.00 per hour instead of the current $27.00 per hour or lose their job. Welfare benefits do does not last long. Workers have to accept lower pay. Numerous other industries, airlines the foremost, have forced their workers to accept a drastic cut in their wages. Countless others have moved out of the country. Ninety percent of software industry is now in India. Shorn of the disguise of reduced wages and benefits, unemployment would be rampant in the USA. I lived in the UK in 2001-2002. The same situation obtains there. They have a smaller economy so their unemployment rate is much higher. All the European countries are busy whittling away at the social support system introduced after WWII. The recent riots in France, at the moment affecting only the immigrants, are portentous of worse to come.
My submission is that when the ordinary humans of the first world will become economically destitute, and will be reduced to the state of the third world, they will rise in solidarity with all the dispossessed. Only then would the long and tortuous historical process will be shortened. And Marx may turn out to be a true prophet after all.

They engineered alienation on religious grounds, so that what were friendly neighbors till yesterday, butchered each other today. The more sensitive ones wore a mask while torturing and raping. The devious ones invited their co-religionists to abduct, bash the heads of, and incinerate innocent children.
They were not a colonial creation. In fact they owe their origin to the Sufi trend in Islam, which emphasized love, tolerance and respect for all creeds, colors and races. The founders of the houses had invariably been men of great character and integrity had exercised overwhelming influence over the populace and were largely responsible for mass conversion of Indians to Islamic faith. They never claimed semi-divine status or a special relationship with God, but their devotees- Hindu and Muslim- attributed miracles to them- exercise their power in a more sinister way. Their serfs are not only in physical thrall; they are in spiritual bondage as well. They send their progeny to universities, but education does not persuade them to shed their semi-divine status. They have a captive constituency, which they unabashedly use to advance their political ambitions. They will use any means to keep their land holdings in the family, and that includes marrying their daughters and sisters to the Quran. In the national assembly they will vote to repeal laws discriminatory to women. “Progressive” parties have to cater to their inbuilt clout
3 They had opposed creation of Pakistan on the spurious argument that all Muslims belong to one nation called the Ummah. Mullahs who had the courage of their conviction stayed back in India. Maulana Maududi founder of the most coherent Islamic party the Jamaat e Islami had been in the forefront of opposition to Pakistan. He migrated to Pakistan, but to be fair to him he never allowed the party to participate in electoral politics deeming the system un-Islamic. After his death the party fell in the hands of “ pragmatists” who wheel and deal like all politicians whose sole aim is to gain power.
Capitalism is sine qua non for democracy. A glance at the conflict between feudal and capitalist interests of the UK since the industrial revolution will suffice. Capital wanted democracy to abolish the hereditary privileges and power of aristocracy. Thanks to the clergy industrial workers were beholden to them and would vote for their nominees who would pass laws against the entrenched feudal interest.
(Fascists like Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam and ZAB have historically been way more effective than military dictators. They have the support of the dominant section of civil society. How they go about obtaining it is a separate discussion.)
I am not prepared to accept that the politicians were helpless. I am not prepared to accept the argument that people are afraid of guns. We confronted Ayub's martial law in 1961, when the army had not yet been castrated by the 1971 civil war and people still had a modicum of respect for the institution. Students, supported by the people again went out on the streets in 1968 and shook the foundations of the army rule. When Ayub hounded ZAB out of Pakistan it was students who sustained him. He was living in self imposed exile in England making the rounds of pubs-I met him in one-lamenting to any one who would listen, how Ayub had victimized him, how he had fought for the gains the army had made in 1965, how Ayub had betrayed the country etc. We held his hand and offered him our unstinted support in Pakistan.
I will risk repetition. Contrast this with Mujib's daughter putting her father's army murderess on trial. During a security meeting a Lt General snubbed her. I read this new item myself. No body denied it).
There is a very good study by Lars Schoultz, a highly regarded social scientist from the U of North Carolina. He has studied the relationship of US aid Vis a viv violations of Human Rights. He contends that the more egregious the violations, the higher the US aid. He has analyzed Latin American countries, but it applies equally well to South Asian recipients of US aid. It is not that Violation of Human Rights is a pre-condition set by aid managers. It is that the rulers get empowered and get away with murder-literally. Zia could not have promulgated all the barbaric ordnances if Soviet intervention in Afghanistan had not opened the floodgates of US aid. For all his affliction with "foot in the mouth disease" (he declared in a public meeting in NY city that women in Pakistan line up to get raped in order to get a Canadian/American visa) Musharraf was lauded by all the functionaries of the USA; Bush down).
There is a theory in evolution. There is, at times, a throw back to remote ancestors. Some current powerful politicians would seem to substantiate the idea).

S.Ehtisham
PO Box 469
Bath NY 14810
Phone 607077603336


S.Ehtisham.