Feudalism in Pakistan: a myth or a reality

By

Hammad Raza

The democratic system in Pakistan is constrained by a multitude of forces. Many analysts opine that feudalism is the major cause which undermines democracy and hinders social equality. Their view is generally shaped by the issue of land reforms in Pakistan raised by many political parties out of populism. They tend to ignore the fact that feudalism as a dominant economic force has fizzled out. It has now assumed value of power in our society. It is mainly the culture it bred over centuries which persists now. Feudalism is often employed as an umbrella term to describe power structure within a rural society. It also describes the pattern of authority in rural set-up—the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. In urban centers its use is confined to merely a metaphor for lack of convenient term to consumerist, power-hungry and elitist mindset.

Feudal values are often confused with elitist values of consumer culture. Both are manifestation of same phenomenon—exploitation. The only difference is that the former relies on the physical use of force and the latter relies on the structural inequalities of neo-liberal economic system. The feudal class is adept in the use of violence to maintain its mastery over tenant class. The classical form of feudalism is not present anywhere in Pakistan. It is present as a variant form of classical feudalism developed by the British rule due to specific socio-economic conditions prevalent during that era. Its inception also occurred in Sub-Continent with the emergence of dual economic system—mainly agrarian and partly industrial—under imperial tutelage.

In classical form it was a medieval contractual relationship among the upper classes by which a lord granted land to his men in return for military service. Feudalism was further characterized by the localization of political and economic power in the hands of lords and their vassals and by the exercise of that power from the base of castles. Each dominated the district in which it was situated. This formed a pyramidal form of hierarchy. The term feudalism

thus involves a division of governmental power spreading over various castle-dominated districts downward through lesser nobles. Feudalism does not infer social and economic relationships between the peasants and their lords in classical theorizing. It was mainly a power relationship.

Lord and vassal were interlocked in a web of mutual rights and obligations, to the advantage of both. The lord owed his vassal protection, whereas the vassal owed his lord a specified number of days annually in offensive military service and in garrisoning his castle. The lord was expected to provide a court for his vassals, who were to provide the lord with counsel before he undertook any initiative of importance to the feudal community as a whole--for example, arranging his own or his children's marriages or planning a crusade.

The analysis of feudalism and its existence in Pakistan can also be analyzed through Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches. Marx conceptualized it mainly in economic terms and as a step towards capitalism and then a classless society. But the people are not willing to re-conceptualize the term. Later on, Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony gives us better understanding of feudalistic mindset prevalent in Pakistan.

According to the Marxian definition, the three elements which characterize feudalism are: lords, vassals and fiefs. Marx defined the concept thus: “the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom”.

Marx’s definition of the feudal mode of production rests largely on the concept of feudal rent. It characterizes both relations of production and ways to extract surplus from the direct producers. The feudal rent requires the existence of large agricultural productive units (manors, demesne) owned by a landlord who, through coercive means, is able to force peasants to pay a rent in the form of labor, produce, or monetary tributes. In exchange, peasants living in villages are allowed to possess small individual landholdings and to access forests and pastures as common land. Surplus extracted as feudal rent reveals a relation of personal subordination between the peasant and the landlord which is confirmed by the fact that the landlord is the supreme

political authority over the geographical unit (the fief) that contains the demesne, peasants’ plots, and common land.

At the same time, the landlord is also a vassal, a personal subordinate of a higher-level noble or of the sovereign, who recognizes the landlord’s feudal authority in exchange for military services. Traditional customs—a theme touched on in Engels’s Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1892)—play a decisive role in sustaining these webs of hierarchies, obligations, and subjection, which appear natural and immutable. Finally, for Marx and Engels, the feudal mode of production reflects a radical opposition between the countryside and the city, which remains economically marginal and undeveloped. This contrast is still vivid in Pakistan.

The system of rent is found in many rural areas of Pakistan. This is commonly called as Battai system. In this contractual form of transaction surplus is expropriated from poor peasant. It not only adversely affects productivity but also deeply polarizes rural society. The Marxist theory on feudalism still holds water. However with the modernization of economy the economic significance of such contractual relationship is losing ground.

Later Marxist historians and scholars took into account the cultural aspect of domination instead of using economic determinism as a sole factor in the relationship of social forces. It also shows how the feudal culture in politics has dominated Pakistan completely. The relationship between the government and the opposition is also a reminiscent of feudal contestation for power. It does not entail civil and democratic institutions to bring civility in the nature of their relationship. Thus the hegemony of culture bred by feudalism persists even after the hegemon is dead or gone.

Some writers like Haider Nizami and S. Akbar Zaidi maintain that there is no feudalism in Pakistan. Zaidi’s main assertion revolves around the shrinking of lands in Pakistan. Being an economist, he took into account economic parameters in terms of land measurement to analyse the presence or absence of feudalism. Whereas Nizami took work of Harbans Mukhia as a frame of reference to formulate that there is no feudalism in Pakistan. The commodification of agricultural products and diversification of division of

labour in rural societies made him think about the absence of feudalism. These changes have taken place with the mechanization of agricultural production and rapid urbanization. But they have also enabled the landlordism to intrude into political and urban culture without changing status quo.

Big landholding is still symbol of power in Pakistan as wrote Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa. She is deadly right in detecting the socio-cultural factors in her analysis of feudalism. Army’s keen interest in the real estate business is making a new feudal class in urban areas. I would like to call this a militarized feudalism. The security state structure and dual economic system are the political and economic markers of this class. The farm house culture in urban centers is a reminiscent of the British era, when feudal elite used to uphold socio-economic structure imposed by the Raj.

Even now in rural areas of Pakistan, feudalistic social relations are glaring. Landlords are ruling the roost. Their ties with power echelons further make them repressive towards tenants and local population. The repressive state apparatus in the form of police is always at their beck and call. It acts as an agent of status quo in feudal relationship. Thus feudalism operates within a dual economic society with the help of social and state sponsored institutions—medieval (tribalism and caste system) and modern (police and politics). Every opposition to dominant system is labeled as a police problem. The resultant crimes out this repression are often handled with iron hand.

The majority of inhabitants of rural areas are still aspirants of freedom and liberty. Urbanities are duty bound to change this pattern of relation of forces in rural areas. It will not only pave way for democracy but also increases agricultural productivity.