| June 05, 2008 | Thursday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 30, 1429 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Matter of shame
‘President Apostate’
Cuts on govt spending
Ensuring more food
Military rule
Of English language
Muslims in India
Historical decision
The local bodies system
Readers are requested to restrict their comments to a maximum of 400 words. We reserve the right to edit letters for reasons of clarity and space. Letters, including those by e-mail, should carry the complete postal address of the sender. The views expressed in these columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.—Editor
THIS is in apropos of Dr Mubarak Ali’s article on feudalism (May 22).
The term jagir as used in the Punjab land administration laws meant an assignment of land revenue, rather than conferment of title to land. One could have a jagir, i.e. a share in the revenue of a village, without owning any land in it.
All jagirs were abolished in Punjab on Daultana’s initiative by the Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1952.
Ownership of agricultural land is a different matter. In the settlements of the 1850s and the 1860s it was found that Punjab (which included the NWFP until 1901) was a country of peasant proprietors.
Eighty-five per cent of the land belonged to peasants, who tilled it themselves. Ten per cent was tilled by owners and their servants or tenants. Only five per cent was in big holdings. With canal irrigation, wastelands became productive, and some big landowner emerged.
The government also made some big grants. But the bulk of state land in canal colonies was granted (initially as government tenants) to peasants from central and eastern Punjab. Punjab retained its character as land of peasant proprietors.
The Alienation of Lands (Punjab) Act (Punjab Act 1 of 1900) was not meant to protect jagirs, rather to save landowners from loan sharks. In the execution of decrees of civil courts, moneylenders were acquiring agricultural lands of judgment debtors.
S. S. Thorburn, a Punjab commission civil servant, described this situation in his book, The Punjab in War and Peace, as the second conquest of Punjab – conquest by courts and lawyers. He was not listened to immediately.
But his book, Mussalmans and Moneylenders (1886, London), aroused interest. The local government proved to be more concerned about rural economy and the welfare of rural population than any government since partition.
The Act of 1900 gave some respite to small landowners by blocking the transfer of their land to non-agricultural moneylenders.
To control the moneylending business, the Registration of Money Lenders Act was promulgated, though this was not enough. The loan amount recorded in the books was often several times the actual amount. Moneylenders would persistently refuse to receive payments of the principal amount. They would not return mortgaged lands even after having received an interest several times their value.
All these problems were tackled by Sir Chhotu Ram in laws like the Redemption of Mortgages Act, Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act and Usurious Loans Act.
Sir Chhotu Ram’s singular contribution was the Debt Reconciliation Boards, which verified the actual value of each loan as against the figure recorded by the moneylender in his books. As a result, in the 1930s and the 1940s loan amount was reduced by about Rs20 million.
Today even in the Islamabad Capital Territory, loan sharks are lending money at 40 per cent and above, and refusing to accept payments on account of the principal amount, while collecting the interest every month. But there’s no Sir Chhotu Ram today. Soon after partition, restrictions on transfer of agricultural land were removed. A new class of absentee landowners has been growing ever since. Businessmen bought agricultural land to show all their income as agricultural income to evade income tax.
Military land grants have created another class of absentees.
Yahya Khan’s military governor of Punjab, Lt Gen Attique Rehman, approved a scheme in 1971 for the allowance of state land to landless peasants. He also decided that after the claims arising from the citations and decorations of 1965 had been met, there would be no more military grant in Punjab.
In Z. A. Bhutto’s administration these decisions were reversed to appease the military.
The impact on agricultural production and rural economy of post-partition creation of absentee interests needs to be assessed.
K.M. CHIMA
Islamabad
IT is unfortunate that Nawaz Sharif should admit that he was ignorant of the Kargil issue while he was prime minister. Being the former head of government, he should shoulder all responsibility of what had been happening in Pakistan -- good or bad.
Just by admitting that he was ignorant and had no inkling of the forces working against Pakistan, he should be barred by the Election Commission from the election. Our heads of institutions should learn to accept responsibilities and their consequences
DR KAZI ADIL
Karachi
(II)
IN a new statement, Nawaz Sharif has categorically demanded that Musharraf should be tried for the Kargil issue. The matter should be clarified from the outset that it was during Mr Sharif’s tenure that the said incident took place and now he acts as if he never knew about it.
He states that he went to Washington to save the nation’s honour and claiming responsibility to save the armed forces’ image.
That is far from the truth in my view. Mr Sharif was fully aware of the implications of this operation and, moreover, it had his blessings. Rather it was he who put Pakistan in an awkward position by going to Washington when he was in a position of strength.
It is easy to shift the blame on someone who was heading the army at the time, while Mr Sharif was heading a government. He should stop playing blame games and concentrate on the core issues, i.e. the people of Pakistan.
JANDAD KHAN
Lahore
THE New York Times Op/Ed article, ‘President Apostate?’ (May 12), questions the safety of President Obama when he visits Muslim nations after his election. The question is based on the fact that Obama, born a Muslim but later converted to Christianity, is (considered) an apostate, and liable to be killed by Muslims.
The piece argues that the Muslim security detail will consider killing him a religious obligation. The question poses a great intellectual challenge for those who believe that apostates are liable to be killed as part of Islamic teachings and a thorough debate is required to remove this misrepresentation.
Although malicious in intent, the article raises a pertinent question highlighting the confusion in Muslim belief that can be easily exploited. This rhetorical question does need a befitting response. Islam is not a one-way religion where people are welcome in and not allowed to leave on their own free will. The Quran does not sanction killing apostates, nor does it give anyone the right to declare the other apostate or non-Muslim. This and similar innovations were introduced in the Muslim discourse by politicised caliphates, governments and opportunistic clergy and are against Quranic teachings.
Fortunately, the fallacy of jihad justifying terrorism against non-Muslims has been busted but came at a huge price. Most mainstream Muslims now realise the flaws of the politically-inspired interpretation which were contrary to Quranic injunctions.
Unfortunately, several similar innovations still exist within the Muslim world; several Pakistani laws framed on politicised considerations (e.g., apostasy, blasphemy) still exist. Little wonder that the Muslim world is headed in the wrong direction.
Electronic communications and the assimilation of societies and cultures will highlight the unintended consequences of such flawed interpretations that have existed when cultures were isolated.
This has now changed and if such erroneous beliefs continue to be classified as Islamic, this will continue to put Islam in the negative light. Muslims must rise to support Quranic teachings by understanding its true meaning and rejecting flawed beliefs. Muslims should become a blessing for the universe rather than be silent spectators or tools to allow politicised interpretations to sully the name of their noble religion.
ARIF HUMAYUN
United States
WITH the current fiscal year ending this month, the new government will probably show more spending than income. The new government is not going to own it, and the previous one under the leadership of Shaukat Aziz is not there to explain.
In the civilised world, levy of taxes is to ease income inequalities but in Pakistan it is to fund the government to plunder the wealth, apparently meant for the betterment of the nation.
In order to close the gap between income and government spending, there are no short-cuts, either. One, the economy has to grow at a faster rate and, two, there have to be big cuts in spending or substantial tax increase.
In these difficult times, the test is to see what option is taken by the new government. The easiest of the two will be the second option which relates to substantial tax increase on commoners.
The present government won’t be lucky to have small debt as percentage of GDP due to economic slowdown, higher inflation, dismal growth in agriculture and industrial sector, less revenue collection from direct or indirect taxes, higher imports of costly goods. Real trying times are ahead for the nation.
Tighten your seat belts as one tandoori nan will cost you more than Rs10.
M. ASIF DAR
Karachi
THIS is with reference to the World Bank’s warning about serious food shortage in 35 Southeast Asian countries, including Pakistan.
Climatic changes in the world are such as do not enable many countries in Europe and Southern America to plant rice, wheat and other grains as usual.
It is, therefore, vital to avoid food deficit and avert wars among neighbouring countries where the seasons have not changed much but where lack of knowledge, poverty and ignorance prevent modern agriculture or promotion of livestock.
Surely, the investors would demand protection of what they grow on modern lines. The United Nations or the World Bank can help draft necessary treaties among the concerned governments, and ensure more food at reasonable prices to all.
W.H. ANSARI
Karachi
PRIME Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has complained that ‘military rule causes polarisation’ (May 30). No doubt that Pakistani society is polarised. The prime minister quickly added that this already divided nation has been further divided by two parties together -- the military leadership and the politicians, including bureaucrats and the affluent class.
He did not elaborate who the affluent class is. Affluent are those people who take big loans from banks and later get them written off by using their influence. That’s how they are called ‘influential’. This is the small part of the nation who aligns itself with military leadership and rules or misrules the country. In case things go wrong, which normally go wrong in such unholy alliance, military alone gets the blame.
The military did not take over the governments all by itself. It was invited or made to seize power. Let’s see why Gen Ayub Khan grabbed the power in 1958 (see it is history of half a century). The politicians were fighting among themselves like some good named animals fight in a kennel. Ayub Khan was already a defence minister-in-uniform, so he elevated himself to a ruler with martial law’s cane in his hand. He even elevated himself to become field marshal.
He made another mistake, he found nobody capable of running the presidency, so he handed over the charge to Gen Muhammad Yahya. He too did not come himself; he was called in to take over. They say he lost half the country. Then Gen Ziaul Haq took over. He was invited by politicians who wrote letters to him to seize power. He destroyed the rest of the country. The incumbent president, Pervez Musharraf, was pushed into presidency by the blunders of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Why blame the military then? It was the politicians who were responsible for the mess we are in.
REHANA NAQVI
Karachi
APROPOS of Mohammad Zafar’s article, ‘A taste for just the right kind of English’ (May 25), the writer was, I think, unduly appreciative of ESP. He even quoted Caliban’s assertion from ‘Tempest’.
‘You taught me language
And my profit on’t is:
I know how to curse.’
The writer forgot two things:
1. You can’t expect better morally from the son of a witch;
2. In the opinion of Dr Johnson (1709-1784) Shakespeare was not meticulous about the choice of words and grammatical accuracy. (Remember his assertion, ‘most unkindest cut of all’).
For multi-factorial use of English you require consummate grammar plus short training on the job. Do not unnecessarily bifurcate and trifurcate English. ESP/ESL is the figment of the vivid imagination of the adroit English people.
ZAFAR ZAIDI
Rawalpindi
IN Akhtar Farooq’s letter, ‘Extremism’ (June 1), he has mentioned about “second-rate treatment meted out to Muslims (in India)”. I am a middle class Indian citizen who has lived and grown along with Muslims as co-students in school and college, co-workers in office and co-citizens in society here. While I don’t deny the fact that what happened in Gujarat does not help communal harmony, I request Akhtar Farooq not to ‘brand’ and generalise that only ‘second-rate’ treatment is meted out to Muslims in India.
The Indian population is over a billion, out of which about 200 million are Muslims . Gujarat is only a very small part of India. I invite Mr Farooq to visit all other parts of India and satisfy himself and not be prejudiced about the entire country by what happened in Gujarat.
It may also be some consolation for him to know that most Indians don’t feel proud or happy about what happened in Gujarat.
KRISHNAN
Bangalore
THE recent decision of the government to abolish the controversial Kalabagh Dam project forever is appreciable. No doubt it was a historical decision as the Kalabagh Dam was not only a risky project for the federation but also had already created genuine concerns among the people of the three out of four provinces, as all of us know this project was meant to favour only one province.
Moreover, the three elected provincial assemblies out of four have already passed nine resolutions against the construction of the Kalabagh dam.
However, the people of the three provinces are still not satisfied and for this the government should take more concrete decisions so that our federation becomes stronger, such as:
a. Like the Kalabagh Dam Project, the controversial Thal canal project in Punjab should also be abolished as it will lead to Sindh’s suffering. Further, this project was initiated unilaterally without seeking Sindh’s consent.
b. All main languages, including Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashto, Seraiki and Balochi, should be declared as national languages along with Urdu. This should be incorporated in the constitutional package.
c. The NFC award should only be distributed on the basis of revenues generated. Sindh has been financially crippled. Although it contributes 70 per cent of total revenues to the national pool, it gets only 23 per cent (according to some quarters only 14 per cent) in return and is thus pushed into an economic crisis.
d. The Keti Bunder project in Sindh should be completed immediately as planned by the previous PPP government.
e. All three smaller provinces, including Sindh, must be given compensation for huge economic losses suffered by them from time to time due to unjustified policies of the previous governments
f. The provinces should be granted provincial autonomy in letter and in spirit, and the centre should desist from intervening in the affairs of the provinces. When a province is enabled to look after and handle its own affairs, it is the country that would, in the long run, stand to benef as a whole.
g. The Indus delta, the sixth largest in the world, is on the verge of death. An artificial scarcity of water for the last many years has resulted in ruination on a large scale. International organisations are raising a hue and cry for a long time to save the delta but in vain. The government should make serious efforts to protect the delta.
h. Moenjodaro, a great world heritage located near Larkana, is victim of neglect. Despite the people’s great concern about the decaying site, the government regretfully hasn’t moved to protect the 5000-year-old civilisation.
i. Both the centre and Punjab should give an assurance that in future all the provinces would be treated equally and their problems resolved according to their needs.
IMRAN KHAN SIAL
Karachi
THERE are statements these days, in newspapers, of influential people about the most significant issue of local bodies system introduced by the dictator to create a third tier of support at the grossroots level. People in general are very much impatient to see what their representatives are going to decide about this confused and collapsed system.
As a former federal secretary and with an extensive experience in public service, I have observed the following flaws in the local bodies system:
— It has made expensive the local administration for a country that is regularly undergoing budgetary deficits.
— It has created confusion and nobody knows where they should go for solution to their problems.
— It has politicised the bureaucracy, and seasoned public servants are at the mercy of a matriculate nazim.
— It has worsened the law and order situation, local health, educational institutions, created unhygienic cities and districts and skyrocketed prices.
— Since the locally elected nazims are to settle old scores with each other, the public servant seems paralysed with no power to solve people’s problems.
— It has led to massive corruption on the part of nazims as electoral expenses are recovered through embezzlement of districts’ development funds.
On the basis of the above flaws and many more that I cannot write due to the limited space, I strongly advice the present government to simply scrap the local bodies system. The country is already in multiple crises and we cannot afford another one, especially when it is a blind and deaf attempt to import institutions from abroad without considering the environment in which they are to be planted.
I strongly suggest that we need to revert to the old system of commissioner and deputy commissioner. So far I have observed that all the four provinces have unanimously evolved a consensus on scrapping the local bodies system and reverting to the commissioner system.
INAYATULLAH KHAN
Islamabad
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address: letters@dawn.com
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.
