Land reform back on the agenda
Land reform is back on the national agenda which, until now, has not reflected the concerns of the ordinary people.
In the days of the British Raj, applications for allotment of land were invited on various occasions. On one such occasion, an illiterate zamindar looking for an influential who knew English, approached Allama Iqbal and requested him to write an application for him. The Allama agreed but said he could only write to the owner of the land. He then told the applicant that all land belonged to Allah and he would be happy to send an application to Him. The preamble and the introductory speeches to the bill on land reform, submitted to the National Assembly Secretariat by the MQM, tell a similar story. Coyly, the good old PPP passion about the “land to the tiller” has also been recalled.
The bill is a follow-up of the National Assembly resolution against feudalism, passed unanimously on September 3, 2010. But the unanimity of its passage did not mean that all parties in the National Assembly would also automatically support an MQM-sponsored bill. Politics is about give and take. The MQM was allowed to present the resolution in return for its support to another resolution —unanimously passed — against “patriotic generals”. On September 10, I had written in these columns: “If the MQM means business, it will have to pursue the bill with due diligence, at a professional as well as a political level.”
The bill contains most of the elements necessary for reform. The maximum size of holdings — 30 irrigated and/or 54 un-irrigated acres — is appropriate. Family, rather than the individual, as the unit of ownership, closes the door of abuse kept wide open in previous attempts at land reform. The principle of compensation has been recognised and the beneficiary criteria outlined. Issues of heredity and barrage land giveaways have been highlighted. Cooperative arrangements have been allowed within limits and exemptions for orchards and shikargahs disallowed. Implementation arrangements have been proposed and the Shariat court ruling discussed. However, some key elements are missing. For instance, there is no knowing how the compensation would be financed. Also, whether or not the distribution of resumed land should be free, needs to be debated in the context of eradicating rural poverty. The size of holdings may also have to vary between the provinces but not necessarily on the basis of the much abused produce index units.
While the bill is a good draft to begin with, its quality or relevance is by no means sufficient for its passage. A poll in The Express Tribune found 89 per cent of respondents doubting whether the current government would pass the bill. The route to enactment is likely to be long and arduous. It would have been better to start the process of consensus-building before submitting the bill. Even now, an attempt should be made to convert it into an official bill.
The hardcore PPP activists believe in land reform. The PML-N manifesto accepts the need for land reform. The ANP may have changed, but still has leaders in its fold who feel for the landless. Point scoring will not help. As I wrote earlier: “At the end of the day, the political process must produce an acceptable compromise. This route may be messy and longer, but it is the only route to sustainable social change.” Is the MQM — unhappy with the PPP, angry with the PML-N and street-fighting with the ANP — up to it? One thing is sure. Land reform is back on the national agenda which, until now, has not reflected the concerns of the ordinary people.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2010.
The bill is a follow-up of the National Assembly resolution against feudalism, passed unanimously on September 3, 2010. But the unanimity of its passage did not mean that all parties in the National Assembly would also automatically support an MQM-sponsored bill. Politics is about give and take. The MQM was allowed to present the resolution in return for its support to another resolution —unanimously passed — against “patriotic generals”. On September 10, I had written in these columns: “If the MQM means business, it will have to pursue the bill with due diligence, at a professional as well as a political level.”
The bill contains most of the elements necessary for reform. The maximum size of holdings — 30 irrigated and/or 54 un-irrigated acres — is appropriate. Family, rather than the individual, as the unit of ownership, closes the door of abuse kept wide open in previous attempts at land reform. The principle of compensation has been recognised and the beneficiary criteria outlined. Issues of heredity and barrage land giveaways have been highlighted. Cooperative arrangements have been allowed within limits and exemptions for orchards and shikargahs disallowed. Implementation arrangements have been proposed and the Shariat court ruling discussed. However, some key elements are missing. For instance, there is no knowing how the compensation would be financed. Also, whether or not the distribution of resumed land should be free, needs to be debated in the context of eradicating rural poverty. The size of holdings may also have to vary between the provinces but not necessarily on the basis of the much abused produce index units.
While the bill is a good draft to begin with, its quality or relevance is by no means sufficient for its passage. A poll in The Express Tribune found 89 per cent of respondents doubting whether the current government would pass the bill. The route to enactment is likely to be long and arduous. It would have been better to start the process of consensus-building before submitting the bill. Even now, an attempt should be made to convert it into an official bill.
The hardcore PPP activists believe in land reform. The PML-N manifesto accepts the need for land reform. The ANP may have changed, but still has leaders in its fold who feel for the landless. Point scoring will not help. As I wrote earlier: “At the end of the day, the political process must produce an acceptable compromise. This route may be messy and longer, but it is the only route to sustainable social change.” Is the MQM — unhappy with the PPP, angry with the PML-N and street-fighting with the ANP — up to it? One thing is sure. Land reform is back on the national agenda which, until now, has not reflected the concerns of the ordinary people.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2010.