A petition on land reforms

Many political analysts concur that existing feudal landowning system makes election process largely meaningless.

The assertion for the independence of the judiciary, in Pakistan, had raised the hopes of many poor people that they would get a chance to see their country become a more just and equitable place. The Supreme Court (SC) has since taken up many cases of national importance, but there is a very interesting petition that has just been filed in the Court, which merits more attention than it seems to have received thus far. This particular petition, filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, raises questions of vital public importance pertaining to the need for more equitable land distribution across the country. This has been taken up by the Workers Party Pakistan, a serving senator affiliated with the National Party, two prominent trade unions federations, the Pakistan Kisaan Committee, the Democratic Women’s Association and by an associate professor of law at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. It is interesting to note that the petitioners have also filed another petition questioning electoral practices in the country, which according to them still remain distorted due to the lack of effective land reforms.

Many political analysts concur that the existing feudal landowning system in the country makes the current election process largely meaningless, especially in rural constituencies where the landlords reign supreme. They can compel their sharecroppers and other dependents to vote for themselves, or for, candidates of their (of the fuedals’) liking which in turn helps preserve the status quo.  This ground reality negates the very spirit of the democratic election process which presupposes a level playing field for every candidate. The petition concerning the need for land reforms, in particular, has sought to challenge an earlier ruling of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in 1990, that declared, in large part, un-Islamic the land reforms introduced through regulations and legislation in 1972 and 1977.

The petitioners have argued that this earlier ruling lacked merit and was based on an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and that the land reform laws are protected by constitutional provisions (Article 259). This allows for ceilings on land holdings through legislation and, hence, the Supreme Court bench could not question legislation that had come about under a constitutional mandate for implementing such reforms, recognised as necessary to bring about equality.

Moreover, the petitioners have noted that the appellate court’s judgment maintaining land reforms to be un-Islamic, needs to be reconsidered since its chairman had hesitated in calling its decision a final one, due to the lack of sufficient scholarly input representing all schools of Islamic thought on the subject. The petitioners have tried to point out that the matter of land reforms being declared “un-Islamic” may have had more validity in a “truly Islamic state”, which has specific duties of welfare towards its subjects. Also, the judgment did not take into account the fact that in most cases, the huge ownerships of the big feudal and landowners are illegitimate to begin with since they came about as largesse extended to them by the British colonists for services rendered; services that often comprised of conspiring with the British against the local populace.

The superior judiciary would do well if it were to pay heed to these issues and revise its earlier stance on the issue of land reforms, which would go a long way in addressing multiple problems concerning the urban-rural divide, unsustainable urban migrations, food insecurity and socio-economic inequalities.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 5^th, 2012.