Classes and Agrarian Transition in Pakistan

18 Pages·2005·11.28 MB·English

ThePakistan Development Review
Vol. XXII, No.3 (Autumn 1983)
Classes and Agrarian Transition
in Pakistan
MAHMOOD HASAN KHAN*
This is a study of class formation and agrarian transition inPakistan. The
process of class differentiation under way isamanifestation of capitalist develop-
ment. The agrarian transition in Pakistan isreflected by the disintegration of the
peasant and feudal systems. The approach adopted in this paper demystifies the
process of agricultural development in an underdeveloped country where, with
the expansion of forces of production, the precapitalist relations of production
are slowly dissolving. It should also help indiscovering the mechanism by which
agricultural surplus is extracted from direct producers and rural poverty is
perpetuated.
1. INTRODUCTION
The historical role of agriculture in the process of capitalist development iswell
known: it provides surpluses of output and manpower for initiating industrialization.
Development is initially flielled by increased agricultural productivity and transfer of
surplus for profits and capital accumulation. 1 Rapid development of the forces of
production in agriculture is then the most important task for the underdeveloped
countries. It is also true that as the forces of production develop they bring about
changes in the (social) relations of production. In apredominantly rural society, the
*The author is Professor in the Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University,
Canada. This paper isbased on two lectures he gave at the Pakistan Institute of Development
Economics. He isgrateful to Professor Syed Nawab Haider Naqvi for severalvaluable suggestions
and comments. He thanks the Literary Editor of the PDR for stylistic improvements in the text.
Of course, they bear no responsibility for the author's opinions and mistakes.
IThis isexpected of agriculture irrespective of the development paradigm one prefers or
adopts. Industrialization (development) means creation and transfer of agricultural surplus -
produced by peasants and appropriated by either landlords or the state - to industries in the
hands of capitalists or the state. But this isnot all. In the contemporary debate on "unequal
exchange" between the underdeveloped and developed (capitalist) countries, backwardness of
agriculture in the former isseen asa major source of net transfer of the surplus through trade to
the latter. It has been argued that low levelsof productivity in agriculture, :particularly in the
food sector, result in international inequality of wages for labour of equal value. However,
Emmanuel [12] and Lewis [32] present two different interpretations ofthe notion of"unequal
exchange" .
130 Mahmood Hasan Khan Classes and Agrarian Transitions 131
agrarianstructure undergoes a processof (class)differentiation, inwhichareembed- should be noted that thePunjabandSind,whichconstitute the Indusbasin,contrib-
ded the seeds of unevendevelopment. A study of the nature and direction of the
ute over80 percent of the national agriculturaloutput, andavastmajority offarms
process of (capitalist) development in an underdeveloped country should therefore arealsolocated intheseprovinces.3
highlightthe processofclassformation andagrariantransition.
In this study, we propose to study the nature and evolution of the agrarian 2. ATYPOLOGYOFCLASSES
transition in Pakistan. The agrarian structure in Pakistan is higWydifferentiated,
The neoclassicalparadigmrests on a world-viewinwhichthe individualmakes
characterized by asymmetrical relations between direct producers and those who
own and control the meansof production (land and capital). The processof class "free" and "independent" choices among alternatives for the "best" outcome in
economicrelationswithother individuals. Developmentisthen amarket-adjustment
differentiation under way in the agricultural sector is amanifestation of capitalist
development, created by the marketforcesandtechnology,andsupported bypublic process, in which the economy tends to move- guided by the "invisiblehand" -
from one (Pareto optimal) equilibrium to the next at a higherlevelof welfare. It is
policy. This differentiation is increasinglybased on the acquisition of capital by
within this framework that the varioustenancy relations about landhavebeen ex-
capitalist farmers and exploitation of the landless and near-landlesspeasants. The
plained. However,sucha theory haslittle, ifany,explanation for theco-existenceof
agrariantransition inPakistanisreflectedbythe disintegrationof the peasant(family
a variety of production relations or tenurial arrangements in agriculture. It isstill
farms)andfeudal(landlord-sharecropper)systems.
lessadequate inexplainingthe dynamicsof theagrariantransition.4
There are two related objectivesof thisstudy. First,wedevelopatypologyof
The alternativeparadigm isbased on the premisethat the individualisneither
peasantry in Pakistan, usingthe unequalendowmentsoflandandlabourasthemain
completely independent nor free, but acts as a member of the group within a
criteriaforclassdifferentiation. Secondly,weanalysethe processofagrariantransi-
complex set of relationships: individual choices are made only within a social
tion toward a capitalist agriculture, with particular emphasis on the underlying
context. Accordingto this point of view,the dialecticalhistorical processprovides
forces hastening this process. Theorthodox literature on agriculturaldevelopment
probably the only satisfactory route in understandingthe differentiation ofpeasant-
assumesapriori voluntarycontractualagreements(tenures)onlandbetweenprofit-
ry(orclassformation) andagrariantransition to capitalism.5
maximizing individuals. There is, however, a well-developed body of dissenting
The concept of classformation iscentral to the understandingof the tendency
literature which emphasizesthe socialrelations of production, inwhichthecontrac-
of a pre-capitalist(feudalandpeasant)agricultureto transforminto acapitaliststate.
tual arrangementsarenot symmetricalandhence the differentiation ofclassesamong
Classasaconcept isembeddedinthe dichotomy between the ownershipofmeansof
farmers or peasants. The development of agriculture,within aframeworkofprivate
production (land and capital) by someand the exploitation of the labour power of
property in land, isthen seenasa contradictory process in which the classantago-
others (peasants and workers). It isan asymmetricalrelationship, historicallydeter-
nismssharpenwith the development of the forcesof production.2 Wesubscribeto
mined by the endogenous interaction of the forces of production and (social)
thislatter point ofviewinunderstandingthe agrariantransition inPakistan.
relations of production. Weuse this dichotomy asa basisfor identifying agrarian
Since at each stage in our argument we plan to use empirical evidence -
classes.6Asshown in Chart I, there are atpresent fivedistinct classesinthe agricul-
"facts" - weshouldpoint out herethe problemswehaveencounteredinmakinguse
tural sectorofPakistan.Theirsalientfeaturesneedsomeexplanation here.
of the available(official) data. The usualcaveatsabout quality of almost allpub-
lishedand unpublished data apply in Pakistan as inanyother underdevelopedcoun-
3Landownership data have never been published as part of the agricultural censuses in
try. Further, the decennialcensusesof population andagriculture,andthe periodic Pakistan. They have not been available to researchers for reasons best known to officials respon-
national surveys,provide no direct information on farm householdson the basisof sible for land records, etc. Further, there are no definite land records for ownership in several
areas of Baluchistan and "tribal" areas in the N.W.F.P. Finally, even the agricultural census data
ownershipand use of land. Then there are no satisfactory data or estimates of the have serious problemli for studying changes in operational holdings (farms), say, in the 196010.
number and status of the landlessagriculturalworkers. Finally,wehavenot found, Re<:ently,Husliain [20] has given detailliofthe adjustments one would have to make to compare
the farm data collected inthe 1960and 1972 agricultural censuses.
at least for our purposes, complete or consistent data for eachof the four provinces
4Currie [9] provides a detailed treatment of various tenure systems within aneoclassical
of Pakistan, namely, the Punjab, Sind, the North-Western Frontier Province framework. We do not have a global optimum but only local ones, depending not only on the
(N.W.F.P.),and Baluchistan. Wehave,therefore, generalisedonthe basisofthe evi- levelof welfare postulated but alsothe specific liegment.
"\
5Wehave made use of the works of Lenin [31] ;Kautsky;Hussain and Tribe [19, Chapter
dence mainly from the Punjab and Sind and occasionally from the N.W.F.P. It
4inVolume Iand Chapter 2inVolume II] and Chayanov [see 30].
6ft issomewhat similar to the method used by Bardhan [5].
2The firstview reflects the classicalparadigm and the second viewisMarxian initsorigin.
132 MahmoodHasanKhan Classes and Agrarian Transitions 133
Chart 1 normally rent out or leasetheir land to others. Others' labouristhe basisofproduc-
tion and source of surplus value for capitalist farmers. Landlessworkers ("free"
AgrarianClassDifferentiation inPakistan labour) are hired for wages. Rich peasants do not selltheirlabourpowerto others.
They work on their land asentrepreneurs par excellence: they organiseproduction,
Class Land Labour
supervise"free" labour, and engagein innovation. Profitsandwagesappearasbasic
1. Landlords LO > 0 SE = 0 economic categories in the distribution of output, although rent still remains an
LR > 0 HL. > 0 important component of income.
,
LR.0, = 0 HL0 = 0 (3) Family Farmers (Poor and MiddlePeasants).Thisclassconsistsofhouse-
holds, who may own, rent or leasepart of the land they cultivate. They may even
2. CapitalistFarmers(Rich rent or lease out part of their land to others. However,these landowners depend
Peasants) LO > 0 SE > 0 almost entirely on family or household labour for production: they usually do not
=
LR 0 HL. > 0 work for others, nor do they hire others to.work on their farms. Thesefarmers are
0 , =
LR,. > 0 HL0 0 probably nearnest to the Chayanovianpeasant who operates a family farm, andhas
3. FamilyFarmers(Middleor showngreatresilienceinthe faceof capitalistdevelopmentof agriculture.
PoorPeasants) LO > 0 SE > 0 (4) Sharecroppers (Tenants). Landless sharecroppers rent all the land they
LR > 0 HL. = 0 cultivate and share the output often in kind with landlords on sometraditionally
0 ,
LR. > 0 HL 0 determined basis. Thisclassmay include somepoor peasants(marginallandowners)
, 0
who must supplement their income by sharecroppingon smallparcelsof land they
=
4. Sharecroppers LO 0 SE > 0 rent in from others. Sharecroppersdo not hire labour and dependentirely ontheir
LR = 0 HL. = 0 household labour. They may selltheir labour power to land-ownersto supplement
,
0
LR. > 0 HL 0 their meagreincomes. Theyare alinchpininthe feudalsystemwhichexistsinparts
, 0
ofPakistan.
5. WageWorkers LO = 0 SE = 0 (5) WageWorkers.Thisclassconsistsof "unattached" (landless)workers,who
LR = 0 HL. = 0 must earn income by sellingtheirlabour power. Theyworkmainlyfor richpeasants
,
LR0. = 0 HL > 0 orcapitalistfarmers. Theirwageispartly incashandpartly inkind. Theymaywork
, 0
on a permanent basis,but most of them findonlyseasonalwork. Theymaysupple-
Note: LO=land owned; LRo =land rented out; LR. =land rented in;SE =self-employment; ment their incomes by working outside agriculture. Theseworkers constitute the
= =
HL., hiringinlabour;HL0 hiringoutlabour.' burgeoningproletariat foragricultureandindustry.
Weshould here clarify a fewpoints inChart 1. First,hiringoflabour byland-
lords (HI> 0) impliesuseof sharecroppers: it isa reference to "attached" labour.
Second, family farmers mayworkforothers eitherinoroutsideagriculture(HO~).
(1) Landlords. They own largeareasof land, and rent out almostallofit in
This,of course, depends on requirements of the family farm and levelofincomeof
small percels to landless share-croppers. Landlords do not rent or leaseland from
the household to reproduce its labour power. Third, sharecroppers may alsowork
others. Labour is provided entirely by the sharecropper's household. Landlords
for others, outside the landlord-tenant nexus, either in or outside agriculture
neither work for themselvesnor providetheir labour to others. Their overlordship
(HO~). Fourth, leasingof land by capitalist farmers or rich peasants could be
on landisexercisedmainlythroughtheir agents(supervisors),and sharecroppersplay
either from landlords, to whom they pay the ground rent, or from middle or poor
no role in production decisions.Profit and wageas economicrewardsdo not here
peasants on fixed payment. Finally, it needs stressingthat the proposed categories
exist. Primordial(or traditional) factors,not economicconsiderations,playa central
arenot byany meansnon-intersecting.
roleindetermining thelandlord-tenant nexus,includingtheir sharesinoutput.
The typology of classes presented here highlights many basic aspects of
(2) CapitalistFarmers (Rich Peasants).The capitalist farmersmayownmost
Pakistan's agriculture. For one thing, it specifiesthe non-homogeneity of a highly
or someof the land they cultivate and rent or leaseapart fromothers. Theydonot
134 Mahmood HasanKhan 135
Classes and Agrarian Transitions
differentiated agrarianeconomy. Bythe sametoken, it avoidsmany of the pitfalls - - E
0
i"nohwenreenr-topineraetmorpst"y, caantdeg"otreineasnbtas"sed- oancelaitshseifrictaetniounrebaosredsiozen,asnucahrbaistra"rlyancdrlioterdriso"n, < E;) .~~ N IN' NV') 0000 0000 0\0\ N00 MN MI' 0qM\q,,-0:0 V0\ ') 00-0000 -- U'0a
u..tI) 000 --00""'; o\~N 000
of tenure - or "large", "medium" and "small" farmers .,-aclassificationbased on NN- ""N\O N V') N 000 ...:i
~
an evenmore arbitrary criterion of farm size. The proposed schemecuts acrossthe u=
~ .~
sreimlaptiloisntsihcitpenwuirtehclaatreggeoarniedssomfalellshsoorlsdianngds.leLsseesesso.rAsclsoou,lditbdeoleasnndolotrmdsaionrtaminidadldeiraencdt 0V0-').<eC~nI.>0?.C..I.> M000-000 N 0MI'0""0I'N N O0""0NV0"')" I' .PQ..o).
,s
poor peasants owning but not using land. Lesseescould be capitalist farmers or >,
~ .D
sharecroppers and poor peasants supplementing their own holdings. Classifications --- '0
bInassteedado,nthaerbyitrmaryystisfiyzetahnedctreenautiroencaantedgoarpiepsrodporinatoitonrevoefatlhtheesporcoidaluscutiropnlurse.laTtihoensse. 0.~..-.. oV0')l~O<C0I.> t> 0I-'00N\0 MN \MV0')-ON\0N V') MrM-;rNN-;o;0M0 ''0~Q.P..o).
groupings do not even assist in analysing the problems of farm organisation in ~1::" - - ~~
.:::J '0
trieolnatsiodnotonothtereisvseuaelstohfe"iemffpicaicetncoyf"eaxntrdac"teioqnuitoyf".agrFicinualtlulyr,althseuraprlbuistraforyr cclaapsistiafliicsat- "~&&:: 60. 0 C..I..> MN-""M00 Mo-Nv0i"0.."tM ~P...o.
accumulation oneachofthe classes. ~V')< ovi..t =Q)
~ ~
'-' 0
What"facts" do we haveabout the proposed typologyforclassesinPakistan's I:: '0=
ahgoruisceuhltoulrdes?. ITnheTraebalere1s,ewveeraidleinntteifryesctilnagssfeesabtuyrqesu.anFtiifrysitn,gfatmheiliyrsfharamress(ihnotuostaelhofaldrms) ~..;:5:: ~N-IvqVN<') C.U.I..> NIN-'NM0-I0' I-' 0-"-"N'-;0O-\--0 NoMqOqNr-O;0\N .,-!Qs=!)!
N N ~
are preponderant in the N.W.F.P.and the Punjab. Butjust overone-quarter ofthe ~ '~
......
farm householdsarefamilyfarmersinSind. Secondly,sharecropping(tenant) house- CI.> ~0 '0Q)
hhoollddss dinomthienaotetheinr Stwinod,pbrouvtinthceeys.hTavheirdolnyl,ycoanpeit-aqluisatrtheoruosefhtohledsshaarreemofofsatrvmishiboluesien- :~:'c" ~I';"I:>:s V0I.')~N-v<C.U..I.> 1o-N';-\o--0;-I~' <\"-0"00V\-010Mr-;-q ~1-'-o0"0q0"<V1 ,"05uE
~ M V') N =
the Punjab(27percent), withtheir secondlargestconcentration inSind(21percent). Q)
;::s .DQ)
Thesehouseholdshavelessthan 12percent ofshareinthe N.W.F.P.Finally,landlord "c&:c: I q ~ ""0\0\ 0000 Q~)
hdooumsienhaonlcdes,ipnaartlilcpurloavrliyncienstSaiknedn, itsogreeftlheecrteadreijnusthteovheirghonsehapreercoefntte,nbauntt t(hsheiarrereclraotpivpe- .Ig:: 0""';V<V') U I.-.'t--\O0o\N0\ OV;~')--~ N- "VON:'0)I-'":N0"1;'0\ -'':="":I
=
;::s Q)
ing)householdsinthe economy. :S u
FamilyThfaerrme eirssasneoetmhetrorhealavteedcoanstproecltooffhothldeisnegfsoruarngcilnagssfersomin ltehsestthhareneopnreoavcinrecetos. .ctI'::"Is> ~~.t.:.-:<0. C.I..>. O0N0NOM-o\- V0O0O-')"NO" - "MV:"'O)":-~N -N N0-t.Q.o=\.).-.
25 acres. Thosewho are operating or owninglessthan one acre can beregardedas .~.. ~S:;j
landlesshouseholds, much like the landlessworkers availablein the labour market III:>: "'0Q) >,
'-'
inisnon1o2-repxoeiusrtctesenindtte,inbauSgtirnictdhu.e7ltyuMraeor.estaoTpfphtaehreesnhhtoalyrldeimnogufschtihnemtshoeereirrailnimaglelitoehfdou1isn-e5hthoaelnddPsu5inn-1ja2tbh.5eanNadc.aWrelms.Fao.rsPet. R~:, p';CUt0..;.:.:.:I.> .~'S'D"C'i-g):~~~i. .~'S'D"C'i-)gZ~u~... .~'S'D"C' i-g):i~L~1..: ~..'SD"C' i-g):~L~i1..: .p't;D."::".::t3-.It-c:):~u::i.i.. -Ug~Q§=;)'-"~o'":0~s.!.J.e~'Q"j.)
~i<8
dominated by either familyfarmers,asinthe N.W.F.P.andthe Punjab,or sharecrop- '0 ::I'"
a 0 =
-=.£
pers, as in Sind. Capitalisthouseholdsseemto cultivate in the rangeof 12.5-25.0 ,-
vPeuynsj.abE7caTknhedretNn[Wu1m1,Fb];.ePr.K,ohfbaunhto[uw2s4ee]hhoaladvnsednoNofaldsaeinredemcletss[i3nw8fo]orrmkgeaivrtsieonsisubpisrntoabonaftbifailclyialeqvudiidtaeetanlcaefrrgooemnincthethenescuopsnreosdvitiainoncndesssuoorff- 0'ee"nn -~je.0tcn:.:. ]u,,.eA'-.-".n.ueCE..'."..n..I..> bu''s."E. ue.C;..)nI...> .t.IC'.c"),.:.I:.>AAe.CU0..n..I....> -<0'eCeennn"I.> ~V:,.Q'<;;)!."):s~.:>.~!-.'.'="E...-eo
agricultural workers, including their wages,for severalareas of the Punjab inthe 1970s.
136 Mahmood HasanKhan Classes and Agrarian Transitions 137
and 25.0-50.0 acres,particulary inthe PunjabandSind. Capitalistholdingsseemto
decline after the size of 50.0 acres, as landlords apparently dominate the highest
....
sizeof landholdings. It may be pointed out here that official data on landholdings CII
0.
ofover 150acresarenot published. .... 00. E
In 3C.haTrHt E2,PwReOCgiEvSeSaOAsFGchSReTAmRRaUtIiAcCNTpUrTeRRseAAnLtNaDtSioIITFnIFOoENfRtEhNeTaIgAraTrIiOanNtrAaNnsDition to a ,-5ag'lI1lrI1-------- --r111---- 1.-0aJ00>E'1-. VI..CcCaa.v"C£.-..".II..:II.I V""1VC0C>J01II-Ii.I1I ""-.ca00.'.. 0-""Ceea00':I:I --, ,IIII
cfoarpitthaelisptrosycestsesmofidnifPfaekreisnttaiant,iownhiocfhpiesafsoalnlotrwyeidnbthyealadsistctuwsosioonrothfreeme dpeirciacdalees.viTdhenercee :z! ~.a~IlI ~-50'II11 I11"20
.;:I 1:1(
are three basic agrarian systems which co-exist in Pakistan, namely "feudal", al "01 ,a
"peasant", and the burgeoning "capitalist" system. In the feudal system, the x: '00;11 'c~lI I1"~0
&::1 .21 d5
landlord providesa landparcelto thelandlesssharecropperwhocultivatesitwithhis ... :;1 1-'
family labour and the animals he owns. The distribution of rental and labour z '00;11 I I I1
incomes isbasedonthe traditional 50:50 shareinoutput, but without awell-defined &::I1 "-ca0'.".0-.0. -a'o-'E + I,
tdhievispioonorofancdosmtsi.ddTlehepeseacsaonntds,dwomhoincaunlttivsyastetefmamisiloyffapremassa.ntEhaochusoewhonledrs,hionucsleuhdoinldg N- 0.Z.... ~.CI.I=C5II LI_- .-0.J0a'... -a..CII "oCC0II"0IaCIIII -_J I
dfaerpmenerdswohnouitssesowwanglealbaobuorurpoownelarnadndanadneimxtarlasc.tsTshuerptlhuisrdvaslyuseteamspirsofoifttfhoerccaappiittaalli.st .us0::. VZ<a>:: 0IJIII .~Jv~- rII-- r"C.0..II. .£:1.ca1.1 :.ua0t:V.>l-"IIII .£:1Ca11 "-ca0'-"'0c0 --, 1I
The capitalist farmer emerges from among the ranks of landlords and rich ..... I .v- 0CII .v-OCII I
1 a::a. a::a. I
peasants: he may own allland and/or evenleasesomefrom peasantsand landlords. z '" 5' I
Labour isprovided by the landlessor near-landless"proletarianized" workers, who < 1 .01 1,-0
.31
a:: JI I~
couldbefrom amongthe poor andmiddlepeasants(familyfarmers)orsharecroppers < ,gl "~01I IgJ
beingevicted or displacedby landlordswho aretransforminginto capitalistfarmers. a:: .31 'ci I~
Ofcourse, not allproletarianized labour isbeingabsorbed in the capitalistsectorof C<> "~01I .agll 1Ie":0
agriculture. Increasingnumbers of these unattached workersaremigratingfromthe 'c011 '00;11 -"C0a1I1I1C -CIIIlICO 11.3
villageAtot tthoewntimorecoitfythaendcreevaetniotnoothfePaMkiidstdalne,Eitassat.grarianstructure wascharacterised .~o;:SIIl It)II .J... ".-00aC.II ECII :.-gaaC.II "CcOII III
L_- 0 Vi 0 1
by a quasi-feudallandlord-tenant nexus in most areasof Sind(and severalareasof Itl -.a0' V>-I aII;I ---II
the Punjab)andapeasantsystemwithfragmented(individualandjoint) familyfarms L1______----- >- ca v.a...
qPuaiktiestannumheardouasdiunalthaegraNr.iWan.Fst.rPu.catnudre,theinPwunhjiacbhparfoevuidnacless.aystAemsschoo-wexnisitnedChwairtth2a, '1Ea1. C0 aaCI.IIII .ca.. a"-ca0.'
""111 ....111
peasant system. Thishasbeen welldocumented in severalofficialreports, both of 0O0CII oOaCII
a. a. a. a.
the ruling MuslimLeagueand of provincialgovernments,in the late 1940sand the
early 1950s:seePakistanMuslimLeague[50] ;GovernmentofSind [55;56;57].
Some of the evidence concerning landownership in the 1950s, and some
recent years, isgivenin Table 2. Landconcentration wasparticularly high inSind,
although the more numerous family farm owners in the Punjab and the N.W.F.P.
aAhistorical account of the land tenure system issummarised inthe Appendix.
138 Mahmood HasanKhan ClassesandAgrarian Transitions 139
"
did not own morethan 55percent ofthe total farmarea. Thereisalsoevidencethat I
5m0ospterocfenthteoflatnhdeianrePaakinisttahne wPuansjtahbenancdultthiveaNte.dWb.yF.Pte.naanndtso(vsehra7re0crpoeprcpeenrst):inabSoinudt . -. I 000 <l/"'!) I I"') 0r--\: I <l-/"'!) CIN"'")1 I -- "N-'"
(pakistanMuslimLeague[50]). It shouldalsobenoted thatwhile occupancytenants, <('"1)I Z IOI\"') "'" N I"')
who had some legally-recognisedrights, were predominent in the Punjab and the
"0
Nle.gWal.lFy..Pre.,ctohgenitseendanritgs-hatts-.wTilhle(fhaamriisly)cfualrtmivsa,tqeuditmeonsutmofertohuesairneathienfSirisntdt.wHoaprrisohvaindcneos, 0-(C1) I C"COi5I\O\OIN"'.),l./")oo 0-0000\00N\ lI/"")') MNNI""O')'""'" l".:/""f'N.):OfNo\ N 0N\
'-
were highly fragmented and did not occupy a significantproportion of the owned ~ ";j
area(PHaokwisthaansMthueslsimtruLcetuagreueo[f5l0a]n)d.ownershipin Pakistan changedsincethe 1950s? 0~2\, il ..DS"''Ir-\l-O/".)-0N. \N0. O1"\l')/"")"rI'"-''':)''' No-;'-'N-:t; N- "IN'":-'-)-;N<'!O\ 00\\
Asisevident in Table 2, the shareof landownerswith over 100acreswent downin V) (1)
0\, u....
their numbers and area in each province. More striking, however, has been the (1)
;::." I C
tihnecreNas.Wed.Fsh.Pa.reTofhilsanrdeoflwecntesrsmwaiitnhlyletshsethsaunbd5ivaicsrieosn,poafrtliacnudlarwlyithininththeePusmnjaalbl-asinzde ~~~"" .'.I.''."">..<.: l-I/""'.)) I .N0:\f r-M-: I 0I""'\:') IN-X! I 0.N:f <-I"'')! I 'N--': "l/':")
holdings. Aswe will explain later, owners of these holdingsare the poor peasants
'0'
who are increasinglyforced to leasetheir land to rich peasants and seekalternative ~
oemf plalnodyomwennetrwshiitphininodricoatuet,siadtelaegarsitcuplatrutriea.llyT,heerosesidoenvoelfotphmeefnetusdaatlthbeaseexotrnemtheeeonndes ~.<;;:.:J::. . 0. I 0l/";) '--': I "N-'" 0\0; I v-: <-'! I 0N 0
Z IMr- 00 N
I
hand andincreasednumberof poor(marginalized)peasantsonthe other. N ';-::. '."...
The data on landownership alone do not adequately reflect the process of :(1Q) .9- (c1)
'"
oJ:::: 0 0\ l/") Nr-oo or-"'" 0\
dhioflfdeirnegnsti(aftaiormn.s)W, wehmicuhstrecfolmecbtinaecctehsesmtowlaitnhd.daAtalsoo,nsitnhceedlaisntdriobwutnieornshoifpodpaetaraatiroenoanl f-o t~ 0':;-j I "CCOi5loor-0NI\"'I"')"'\)0"'"0 "\C"'J'N''''"''"'';' \-CJr---:or-; oONN 0
0
individualand not household (or family) basis, any reduction in the number and .g
;::. (1)
area of large landowners (including landlords) may be largely illusory. As Khan ~ .....
[29] reports, two things seem to have happened, partly in anticipation of and '0I:': c(u.1..). {.Sj' \1C"J')0"0"'\- 0o\O\0o"r';"r--: -.:lf/"M)OM 0r-00l/") l/") 0
partly in response to the land reform acts of 1959 and 1972. Firstly, there were .g p(1.), \0 \0 \0 N I"') N ,.....,
osiwgnniefrischainptt(iltelegsal(oanrdclaniomtss)otolelgaargl)e-insitzrae-hhoolduisneghsodldectlriannesdf,etrhseoafctluaanld.coSnot,rowlhoiflelatnhde :E:t:.s\ .c''.."".. "'" 00 r- - t; I v: <-'! I l/") - lS
remained largelywithin the samehousehold.Someof thismayexplainthe increased ~ .\:0f I 0r- 0N0 I lN/") l/") I"') 0 0 0;-
.5
sehstaarteessomf ahyoldhianvgesboefen5-h2e5lpeadndby25t-h1e00intraocdruesc.tiSoencoannddlyu,steheofbnreeawkufaprmofitnhpeultas,ndthede ~ '."... l-0/"-\)0r--r- - 0l-/") -r-- \r--0 0l-/") --r- \r--0 0l-/"-\)0r-- r-- 0l-/") !;j
(1) 0\0\0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\0\0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ Q
>-
benefits of which would not be shared with tenants. Wewillreturn to thisexplana- ~ ::;
tion inthe next section.
.::i
't:I
The basic hypothesis advanced here about the formation of classesand the 4=)
aoiasgnfrdpathrroiteaevnneiduvterriaeddn.edsnWiictrieeohconetflnyitnhcboePymauktbshieisentoaeafndgliraswincsdiuttrhltetoungdrgaeatltthhaceeenronewnsduiesltahmdniapdttsioarwiocownanelnlryedsrihissfihtprwiipbet.hueSetxiyooamnmceaionnofeffectavhlroeimsnseseilvnybidydsioecsmnaizcteeee .(e.t.1.).:!!-'<-:' ) l-/''('0""""1)) o0Nl/0./0.\".r)..; 000-0oN.0.r..;. 0000-(.1.).. 000l/.(1.".).1)I .:.:"s
changes in the production relations, Le. a shift from the feudal and peasant to /\
140
Mahmood Hasan Khan ClasseasndAgrarianTransitions 141
capitalist relations. Let us first look at the broad picture of changesin thedistribu- I
tion of farmsandareainthe Seventies.9 ~
~
In Table 3, consistent with the evidenceregardinglandownershipbyfarmsize ~:Z> 0r-0; r-; N-r-;~-v: Ov~:N~r-; ~<-M'!-v: O~-O-~oq MV-;--~
presented earlier, the family farmsof under 5acresarepredominant inthe N.W.F.P. I I
and then in the Punjab. Theirsharein the total number hasincreasedsubstantially s:: .
0
in the three provinces.Similarly,their shareinthe total farmareahasincreased,but '; "O O~ ~"': 1--00 --:~- -r-;-o-q ~~
it wasstilllessthan 20 percent inthe N.W.F.P.andlessthan 7percent inthe Punjab .'C0 ~I ~v,~I 0 0 ~ ~ ~M ~0\ M ~ 0 I-- ~
t;;<
aswellasinSind.Thatthesefarmsarecultivatedmainlybypoorpeasants,whomust is
E
tshuepiprletemnetunrtiatlhesitratiunsc.omMeosbtyofwtohrekffaorrmostihnerbso,thwothueldPbuencjoambeancdleSairnwdhaerneiwnetheexarmaningee c~:> .bQ'I)3)'I-J~.. ..D~ -: <'! oq v: "': ~ <'! "': r-; ~ r-; "':
~uO S-' 00 ~~ ~MM~ N;0-\ -~~- ~~
of 5 to 25 acres, and they alsooccupy most of the farm area,particularly in Sind. I
Q Ii) I p..,
These farms are predominantly sharecroppedinSindandoperated byfamilyfarmers N" p..,
in the Punjab andN.W.F.P. Theshareoffarmsof over25acreshasdeclinedinthese 0\ s:: - -
o:j
.....
two provinces,but increasedin Sind. Their sharein the areaalsoincreasedinSind, z::- ~.~ NN M 00 00 00 0 0 0 0
reflecting perhaps the resumption of land by landlords for capitalist farming. It is :.':&'! ! p..I,00 onl-- ~""'~;<'i 0-0-r-: vivi 0\00
also important to note that whilethe sharesof largefarmsdeclinedinthe Punjaband ~
z:: ~
the N.W.F.P.,proportionately the fallwasmuchlessinareathan innumbers. '- ~
The foregoingchangesarehighlightedin another way inTable4. Theaverage ~ ~ <'!~ V:<'! ~~ ~<'! "':~ ~~
.;; . NN ~- OOM ~M N- 00
" z-- ~~ MM
sizeof farms in each sizeup to 12.5 acresbecame smallerbetween 1972and 1980. I
E..:. s::
However, the averagesize of farmsof over 150 acresincreasedsubstantially in the 2M r~ .0- --
Punjab and the N.W.F.P. The averagesizeof middle-sizefarms grewsomewhat in .0o:j ~ ;; ].- ~~ OOM 00- NM 1--00 00
~ a
Sindbut remained unchanged in the other two provinces. Moresubstantialevidence Eo-< E.:.. 't-;;..."E.,0I 0 I 0 0 0-N0 on IM--~I-- on on 0 0
in support of the transition appears in Table 5. Wehave here data on the area
r~ 0 o:j
Q) IJ..
rented in and rented out by varioussizes of farms between two points intime: .0
'C;- ~ '0 o:j
1971-72 and 1979-80. Ownersof 5 acresor lesswere not only renting their area § ~ '1::'0 M - I-- - ~ 00N I--MOO
out, but its magnitude also increased substantially in the Seventies. Whatiseven '<::; ~ ~ ~~ 0""'; <'i00 00r-: <'i<'i 00
:::! Q) 1 I NM ~~
~ p..,
more interesting is that the middle-size farms (5 to 25 acres)in the Punjab rented ';::
.t;- so:::j
out land but in Sindthey rented in from others. Theseopposite tendenciesexplain
Q t;; -:V: --: ~r-; r-;v; ~~ ~~
the fact that middle and poor peasantsleaseout increasingamount of their landto .S ~ ~ ~ ~;:;'; ~ ~
~ 1 I-- ~ M N 0 0
other in the Punjab which is a reflection of a growingcapitalist tenancy - and p..,
- z::
(:j
sharecroppers rent in from landlords in Sind. This isalso supported by evidence that ~
\j I N-O- -NO- N-O- -NO- N-O- N-O
ownersof largeholdingsrent out their areainSind. However,Khan [29] hasshown o:j 1--00 1--00 1--00 1--00 1--00 1--00
Q) 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
that the area rented out by large landowners (landlords) in Sind has declined in the ~
Seventies, indicating a shift toward capitalist farming by landlords through increased
-
resumption of land from sharecroppers for owner-cultivation. 0 ~- ~ 0\
tQN,i3.)..~t;G; 0v 0ovn ~~Nv 0~v. 0~v "00>s::- 1 ~v..
\vhile we have not here used the 1960 agricultural census figures because ofthe problems s~:':-'< I 0I I 0o:j '"
stated in footnote 3, Hussain [21] argues that changes in the 1960s were largely similar to IJ.. ~ vi ~ 0- ~
those observed inthe 1970s. ~ N 0~ ~. I v:c::s>
-
Table 4 .j>.
tV
ChangeinAverageFarmSize inPakistan,1972 to 1980
Farm Size Pakistan Punjab Sind N.W.F.P.
(Acres)
1972 1980 1972 1980 1972 1980 1972 1980
< 1.0 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.67 0.60 0.50 0.48
1.0- < 5.0 2.75 2.69 2.78 2.71 3.06 2.98 2.53 2.45
5.0- < 12.5 8.21 8.02 8.23 8.05 8.43 8.07 7.53 7.40
;:,.
;c:J
c
12.5- < 25.0 16.45 16.47 16.29 16.16 16.76 17.08 16.36 16.83
25.0 - < 50.0 31.89 31.84 31.62 31.54 31.97 32.62 32.00 31.94 !:S
>i:s:
50.0- < 150.0 71.86 72.07 70.29 70.95 77.92 71.73 73.18 79.63
150andOver 280.13 301.31 255.57 274.86 374.00 316.00 287.50 481.00
Average 13.00 11.50 13.10 11.70 12.70 11.50 9.10 7.60
Source: [45;49].
Table 5
Renting of Farm Area by Size of Holding inProvinces of Punjab and Sind, 1971-72 and 1979-80
AreaRented in(000 Acres) AreaRented Out(000 Acres)
FarmSize
1971-1972 1979-1980 1971-1972 1979-1980
(Acres)
Punjab Sind Punjab Sind Punjab Sind Punjab Sind
up to 5.0 -5,985 -218 -8,280 -372
C'":)
;s-
oo'",,
> 5.0 - 25.0 +2,607 +1,856 -165 -1 ,023 o,
!:>
> 25.0 - 50.0 +1,917 +820 -1,074 -882 ";"J:..
...
is'
> 50.0 -150.0 -765 -2,383 -1,540 -2,490
o,
:;'
over 150.0 [phone] o'
o,
Source: [45;49;29,Chapter 3].
Note: Theareasrentedinandrentedoutha.vebeendeterminedbydifferencesineachsizeoffarmbetweenownedandoperatedareas.
.j>.
w
144 Mahmood Hasan Khan Classes and Agrarian Transitions 145
In the Punjab, most of the land rented out by poor and middlepeasants is seedof wheat andriceinthe latter part ofthe Sixties. Publicpolicyofsubsidiesand
leased by rich peasants, particularly those with 25 to 50 acresand someof it even
price support played an important supportive role. However,it isequallyimportant
by farmerswith 150acresandmore. Infact, thistendency ofthe verylargefarmsto to note here that public policy at that stage was part of a "bimodal" strategy,
increase in sizewasalso reflected in Table4: the averagesizeof farmsof over 150
emphasizing the dependence on large-scaleand commercializedfarmingin contrast
acresincreasedsubstantially in the Seventies. Thesechangesinrentingorleasingof with a "unimodal" approach which emphasizesthe growth of the entire agricultural
land between various sizesof farms indicate that (a) poor peasantsare increasingly sector.11
renting out their lands to middle and rich peasants, (b) landlords are renting out The bimodal strategy of agriculturalgrowth, reflectingthe dominant ideology
less land to sharecroppers, and (c) capitalist farms are increasingat the expenseof and political alliances,hasseveralinteresting features. First, it prefers the adoption
poor (and evenmiddle) peasantsinthePunjaband oflandlords(andtheir sharecrop- and use of technology which is not neutral to scale.Second, the increased private
pers) in Sind. Khan [29] and Hussain [21] have provided supporting evidence profitability of new inputs, created mainly by public subsidies,produces a double
of changesin owner-operated and sharecropped areasin the country in the Sixties process: increasingcapitalist relationsonlandanddecreasingfeudaltenancy, both at
andSeventies.
the expense of poor peasants and sharecroppers. Third, the availabilityand useof
the productivity-increasing inputs are themselvesa function ofthe socialconditions
4. SOMEEXPLANATIONSOFTHEAGRARIANTRANSITION
in which they are introduced. It is,therefore, important that the underlyingforces
The agricultural crisis of the 1950s in Pakistan has been well documented forthe transition shouldbe seenwithin the context of the agrarianstructure itself.
The bimodal strategy was premised on two crucial assumptions. The first
(Falcon and Gotsch [14]). Farm productivity stagnated and the rate of growth of
assumption was that the central task in the development process was to generate
population started to gather momentum. The agrarian structure remained higWy
income through private markets, buildingon the best, whichwillalso combine the
differentiated, except that at the lower end of the peasantry there wasincreasing
trickle down effects. Secondly, it was assumed that the emergingbiformity in the
subdivisionand fragmentation of holdings. The settlement ofMuslimrefugeesfrom
agrarian structure - the rich kulak type peasants (owners and operators of large
India, at least in the Punjab, added to the increasingnumber of middleand poor
peasants. In Sind, it tended to aggravatethe conditions of the haris,asmost ofthe farms) in the lead and the poor peasants (smallowner-operators andsharecroppers)
following- willboth createarapidprocessof growthandtricklethe effectsdownto
settled refugeesjoined the ranks of absentee landowners. Thepoliticalenvironment
the massofpoorpeasants. Inshort, dependenceonlarge-scalefarmswasthe corner-
for agrarian"reforms", so much publicizedin the early daysof Pakistanby the top
leadership, remained unfavourable and the landed elite stayed intransigent. The stone of the bimodal strategy as opposed to the unimodal approach followed by
tenancy reforms of the early 1950s in the provinces introduced some marginal countries like Japan, Taiwanand South Koreainthe 1950s. Thebimodalstrategyin
changesforthe occupancy andnon-occupancytenants [29]. Pakistan reflected partly the belief in the trickle-down theory, so popular at that
The land reforms of 1959 brought the first visible pressure on landlords to time, and partly the reality of a biformed agrarianstructure whichwasemergingin
Pakistanafter the landreformsof 1959.
readjust their holdings and relations with peasants. However, as Khan [29] has
shown, there is ample evidence that these reforms did not basically alter the Let us now examine the forceswhich canhelpto explain the agrariantransi-
concentration of landownership, as there were substantial intra-family (or intra- tion under wayinPakistan. Asearlier,wewilluse"facts" wherethe data permit.
household) land transfers andevenevasionof the ceilingonindividualholdings. The
ChangesinProductivity and
landless and near-landless peasants received little if any land, and most of the
I the AgrarianTransition
resumedlandwasinanycaseuncultivable.1° I.
The most significant changesaffecting the agrarian structure came with the I Privateprofitability depends on, among other things, the extent to whichnew
development of water supply, particularly of ground water through installation of (better) inputs lead to positivechangesin the cropping pattern (e.g., multiple crop-
private tubewells in the Punjab. Thisfacilitated the adoption of fertilizer and new ping) and level of yields of crops. Berry and Cline [6] haveprovided substantial
evidencethat farm productivity (technical efficiency)iscloselyrelated to the sizeof
10See also the debate between Alavi [4J and Burki [8J. Khan [29J and Hussain [21J
support Alavi's argument that these reforms did not reduce the influence of landlords on the 11A full discussion of agricultural stra!egies in the sixties can be found inJohnston and
political process in the country. Kilby [22J.
146
Mahmood Hasan Khan Classes and Agrarian Transitions 147
farm and the tenurial arrangement. The traditional superiority enjoyed by small early Sixties, its search for what were regarded as the most important inputs of
(owner-operated) farms was premised on their intensive use of family labour and factors for generatingand sustainingagriculturalgrowth.Weshouldnowanalysethe
animal power. However, with the spread of the Green Revolution technology in effectsofthe newinputsandtechnology onthe agrariantransition inPakistan.
Pakistan, the size-efficiencyrelationshipseemsto havebeenreversedinfavourofthe
large farms, thanks to the water-fertilizer-seed-machine package which the rich WaterDevelopment
peasantsandlandlordscouldobtain athighlysubsidizedrates.12 Thewater-machine
In arid Pakistan, waterhasbeenrightlyconcededasoneofthe most important
technology required lumpy investment and the technology packagewasnot scale-
inputs for crop growth. The canal irrigation system, inherited from the British
neutral. The credit-extension services,with the input andoutput markets,havealso
administration and concentrated mainly in the plains of the Punjaband Sind,was
been closelylinked to the sizeofone'sholdings.Aswewillarguelater, the structure
quite inadequate to meet the water requirements of even the traditional cropping
of technology and the direction of credit flowsthemselvesreflectedthe influenceof
patterns. Further, water lossesfrom the canal system were no lessserious,partly
largelandownersandcapitalistfarmersonpublicpolicy.
becauseof poor drainageand partly owingto poor water management onthe farm.
There has also been an equally impressivedemonstration of the higherlevel
Vast national resourceswere required to expandthe surfaceirrigationsystemandto
of productivity of owner-operated (small) farms vis-a-vis sharecropped (small)
alleviate the menace of waterloggingand salinity. It wasat this time that, at least
farms in Pakistan.13 Landlords could appropriate entirely the benefits of new
in the plains of the Punjab, installation of private tubewells as a supplementary
technology by reducingtheir dependence on sharecroppers. Resumption oflandfor
source of water became evidently profitable. AsGhulamMohammad [36] shows,
"self-cultivaton" became not only profitable but also necessary: the increasing the development of private tubewells in the central and eastern districts of the
pressure ofcasheconomyandthe competition withrichpeasantsandcapitalistfarm-
Punjabhadbecomeimpressiveanditsresultsquite asmanifest bythe mid-Sixties.
ers have narrowed the choices of landlords. Further, in those areas of the Punjab
Private tubewellshaveprovidedadditional water and at the time when it was
and Sind in which the cost of attached labour (sharecroppers) was rapidly rising,
most needed for optimum plant growth. New crops could now be grown,which
there wasadded incentive for landlords to adopt the machine technologyandmake
required more water, and use of fertilizer became evidently profitable. It alsothen
use of the relatively cheap labour which these machinescreated among tenants and
facilitated the adoption of high-yielding seedsof wheat and rice introduced in the
landlessworkers. The scaleand management effects havebecome clearlydominant
late-Sixties. There are at least four important aspectsof the development ofprivate
in determining the sizeand tenancyarrangementsinPakistanagriculture. Underthe
tubewellswhichshouldbehighlightedhere.
propitious conditionscreated bythe newtechnology andsupported bypublicpolicy,
(1) Private tubewells havebeen installed mainly in the plainsof the Punjab.
capitalist agriculturehas become an increasinglyattractive and evennecessaryalter-
They are not economical in mountainous areasbecauseof the great depth to which
native to the feudal andpeasantsystems. Weshouldnowturn to factors (inputs and
they must be sunk to reach ground water. For similarreasons, they havenot been
policies)whichhavecreated the differentialproductivity effectsinthe first place.
developed in Sind where the high degree of salinity is an additional barrier. This
uneven development of ground water has been an important factor in explaining
UseofInputs andthe AgrarianTransition
some ofthe interregionaldisparitiesoneobservesinthe country.14
Productive and commercialisedagriculturedevelopswith technologicalchange,
includingnewinputsand newmethods oforganisingthe old inputs. Theintroduction
of new inputs and methods depends on a host of factors, of which the structure of
l"water from private tubewells hasbecome amajor source ofirrigation to farms inseveral
landownership and tenurial arrangements are often the most important. The domi-
areas of the Punjab. The impressive increase innumbers oftubewells canbe seenin the following:
nant feudal and the marginalpeasant systemswhich Pakistan had inherited showed
Year Pakistan
Punjab
little propensity to change the age-old methods of production. Agricultural stag- 1964-65 34,400 (private) 28,746 (private)
nation, inthefaceofrapidpopulation growth,hadcreated severerestraints onindus- 1970-71 97,636 (private +public) 81,814 (private)
trialization. It was againstthis background that the Ayub regimelaunched, in the 1974-75 154,290 (private +public) 130,453 (private)
1979.80 185,973 (private +public) 154,468 (private)
12We have now several studies in Pakistan, particularly in the Punjab and Sind, which
These figures are from Eckert [1OJ;Yasin [63J;Government ofPakistan [42J .
support these generalisations. See, for example, Khan [26J; Mahmood [33J; Salam [52J ;Khan
[27]; Mahmood and Haque [34].
13Por example by Khan [28; 29]. Por some other countries, seeBerry and Cline [6J.