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.