Should it be applied and why ?
I think not
Re: Land Reforms
yeah, so as to have a more just division of land a resources... To break the hold of land lords and feudal system, particulary in Sindh...
Re: Land Reforms
wat is feudalism n how it differs from landlordism?
n isnt it rude to take some1's property for whatever reason
Re: Land Reforms
wat is feudalism n how it differs from landlordism?
n isnt it rude to take some1's property for whatever reason
that will make independence movemtn of india illegal.. point is just because taking benefit of british empire some landlord amassed land doesn't mean that land belongs to him....... otherwise why even drive british out ......
Re: Land Reforms
On serious note: Jinnah supported landlords and opposed land reforms . it was very very big reason for his Pakistan idea finding popular support in region which is pakistan today because this reason was full of landlords. before congress started land-reform mantra congress as popular everywhere in fact Muslim league hardly won any seats in 36-37 elections but when congress gave call for land reforms everything changed.......
Re: Land Reforms
ML was formed in bengal and the indian muslims had a big part in the demand for Pakistan!
Notwithstanding that ML ended up debangalanized and more feudals / unionists of punjab etc ended up in the party makes it no way that Jinnah was pro-feudal!
Jinnah himself came from a middle class background so any theories you have of him of being a feudal wannabe can be shoved up your rear! :)
Re: Land Reforms
Just check the list of feudal landlords as a front runner leader of his party.. I know you are angished over this but fact can;t be changed until Jinnah supported landllords and opposed land-reform his Muslim League was finding it hard to win even in muslim majority areas thanks to likes of Gaffar Khan's of congress.............
Liyaqat Ali Khan was the biggest landlord that ever was in pakistan and just go check the number of assembly members even today in pakistan be it muslim league or ppp 90% will be some feudal landlord and this has been case even before partition........
Re: Land Reforms
Yes those indian muslims who had big part in pakistan were not landlords but face it big or small until feudal landlords of region which is today pakistan joined the movement against congress's landreform calll the pakistan moved didn't have steam.. In fact in 1936 election muslim league was all but wiped even from muslim majority region then came jinnahs master stroke whihc was love for feudal land-lords in wake of congress's land-reform call.........
Re: Land Reforms
^^ Do you make sense to yourself?
Re: Land Reforms
never mind pal noone likes the unplatabale truth keep ur eyes closed that's the only way out of embarassment
Re: Land Reforms
**
Gandhi was representing Hindu Industrialists and Jinnah was for the Muslim Landowners. **
Ganguly I appreciate your view of the 1930’s politics. There are few analysts / historians who want to go beyond simple Hindu-Muslim clash theory and look at the aspects such as landlord role in politics.
However you ought to see that landlords formed Muslim League and Jinnah joined the party much later. You will understand the need for landlord party when you closely scrutinize Indian Congress.
Many Baboos of today ignore the fact that Congress party (formed by British), quickly went into the hands of industrialists. These industrialists were dominated by the followers of Hinduism with small sprinkling of Parsi, or Muslims mainly of Gujrati decent. This group kept the landlords at bay, so the landowners ended up making their own party called Muslims League.
Industrialists wanted more power and money so they raised the slogan of “swa-deshi”. This was very similar to the slogan by GM and Ford when they said “Be American and Buy American”. It is comical as GM was importing 80% of its parts from overseas. In reality their slogan was meant to bring more profit to the owners rather than the benefit for ordinary American. This is how swadeshi movement was trying to bring mo-money to the industrialists.
Swadeshi movement was going nowhere, so Tilak the old leader of Congress was forced out and industrialists brought a young aspiring rebel rouser from South Africa called Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi.
Gandhi promptly set about creating instability (woops non-violent struggle) so the British would relent and give tax breaks to the industrialists. However his success was limited because Tilak had mostly used Hindu symbols to rouse the public.
Gandhi got a gift from God when Turkey got trampled as a result of WWI. Gandhi fully exploited this chance and got most of the UPites, Biharis, and some Bengalis enraged against British government. All the Mullahs went to Gandhi camp and thus we saw the major anarchy in the country.
Jinnah was against Gandhian shenanigans. He left Congress and later joined ML.
Dear Ganguly, the bottom line is that Congress was socialist-anarchist from day one, whereas ML was a free marketer constitutionalist from day1. Jinnah and Gandhi simply followed the policies set by the king makers of the two parties.
**
Big land lords existed even before British East India Company’s rule **
The current crop of feudal lords may contain some British made richie rich like Doltanas. However most of the Nawabs and Subedars were given lands by Mogals and other rulers way before 1857. So yes the land belonged to the owners just like all the Hindu industrialist like Tatas who became big thanks to British rule.
**
Who formed Muslim league:**
ML was made by Nawabs and Chaudharies. Just look it the history man Nawab Salimullah, Muhsinul Mulk and Waqarul Mulk were no street urchins. It had to be dominated by Punjab as Punjab was the most prosperous region in the whole country. Even Congress was utterly dependent on “donations” from Lahore business elite and their lobbyists called Lala Lajpat Rai.
Re: Land Reforms
*Gandhi was representing Hindu Industrialists and Jinnah was for the Muslim Landowners. * Ganguly I appreciate your view of the 1930's politics. There are few analysts / historians who want to go beyond simple Hindu-Muslim clash theory and look at the aspects such as landlord role in politics.
However you ought to see that landlords formed Muslim League and Jinnah joined the party much later. You will understand the need for landlord party when you closely scrutinize Indian Congress.
What about Hindu Landlords ? Did they made Hindu League?
[QUOTE]
*Big land lords existed even before British East India Company’s rule *
The current crop of feudal lords may contain some British made richie rich like Doltanas. However most of the Nawabs and Subedars were given lands by Mogals and other rulers way before 1857. So yes the land belonged to the owners just like all the Hindu industrialist like Tatas who became big thanks to British rule.
[/QUOTE]
Well British gave lands on lease ......n many feudals purchased it after words
so it becomes their property ......not just a lease ......so its wrong to snatch thier lands of which they ve given a price .....
n by the way i ve heard that in Indian Land Reforms the Govt. purchased it from Feudals ........thts not land reforms ........land reforms were of *ZAb's *
Re: Land Reforms
that will make independence movemtn of india illegal.. point is just because taking benefit of british empire some landlord amassed land doesn't mean that land belongs to him....... otherwise why even drive british out ......
But their were many Beaurecrats as well who reaaly helped the national cause .......n many other officers as well like *Sir Syed Ahmed Khan , K.B.Deputy Nazir Ahmed. *.......they did nothing wrong , so british also gave property to some good ppl as well......
n by the way british gave on lease .......we can give an option to them to purchase ......and wat abt those purchased it b4 1947????/
Re: Land Reforms
oh yea .......wat abt Nawab Saif Ali Khan............Did indians aplied it on him too? n ppl like him
Re: Land Reforms
Hindu landlords were few and far between. Call it division of labor. In the North ( North-central to North-Western subcontinent), Moguls gave land-management to Muslims, and money-management to Hindus. Sikhs fell between the two with some in money-management and some in land-management.
Bengal was different where Hindus were landowners. However they were outshined and outsmarted by Hindu industrialists.
In Punjab almost 99% of land belonged to non-Hindus. During my history readings, I have come across one example of Sir Chotoo Raam being a big Hindu-landlord in Punjab. He off course always sided with Muslims landowners.
So to answer your question, Hindu landowners were too small of a number to form a separate party, so they sided with Muslims when it really mattered. They too were scared to Kommie politics of Congress.
Dunno about leasing issues. Once you got the land you kept it as long you didn’t create anarchy (fasad) in your area.
Re: Land Reforms
[quote]
In Punjab almost 99% of land belonged to non-Hindus. During my history readings, I have come across one example of Sir Chotoo Raam being a big Hindu-landlord in Punjab. He off course always sided with Muslims landowners.
[/quote]
Include sikhs in that as they controlled punjab big time!
There are many facets of how the landlord culture evolved in Pakistan. You also have to look at the fact that when hindus and sikhs (majorly) left due to partition, choora chamars who otherwise would be nothing ending up occupying the land and became the feudal "ashraf" while still retaining their chamar culture!
In india though, the oligarchies / feudals / princes backs were broken successively (finally by infamous indhira gandhi who disallowed feudalism in India and its titles) while in Pakistan, democracy (hotbed was in east bengal) was defranchised and eventually thrown away when E. Pakistan was forced out of Pakistan!
The lease part is entirely not true. Actually it is the first time I am hearing it!
Do you think really think the bhuttos or chaudhries in punjab actually paid for their land?
Re: Land Reforms
[quote]
I know you are angished over this but fact can;t be changed until Jinnah supported landllords and opposed land-reform his Muslim League was finding it hard to win even in muslim majority areas thanks to likes of Gaffar Khan's of congress............./quote
Ghaffar Khan was never popular outside his pashtun areas (NWFP) and even then, pathans ended up voting for Pakistan instead of India!
See, no matter how pro-india ghaffar khan himself was, you gotta understand that pathans will never "live" with hindus with whom they fought wars (subjucated) against them!!!
Re: Land Reforms
My dear Karachi walah baboo! Read! The statement says:
"**In Punjab almost 99% of land belonged to non-Hindus. **During my history readings, I have come across one example of Sir Chotoo Raam being a big Hindu-landlord in Punjab. He off course always sided with Muslims landowners.
"
Don’t you know that non-Hindus include Sikhs? Read baboo read!
Let’s not delve into curse words like “choora chamars”. That kind of language only suites them Bihari kids of Rubri Devi.
Muslims owned majority of land in both East and West Punjab before Aug 1947. There were few villages of Sikh landowners. After 1947, Muslims lost all 2.5 divisions of agri land in the East while gaining few villages in the West. The real winners of Punjab partitions were the Hindu and Sikhs. They gained the most expensive and prized part of Punjab that we all know is “land”.
The true strength of non-Muslim Punjabis before 1947, was based on trading the raw material of Punjab produced by none other than Punjabi farmers. Pakistan survived against all those dire predicitons of pre-1947, because Punjabi farmers continued to feed the rest of the Pakistan. That simply showed that the true strength of any nation (including US of A) lies with land and the landownership. Learn Baboo learn!
If you continue calling Muslim Landowners of Punjab as “choora and chamars”, well that simply shows your “almighty” roots extending all the way back to Rubri Devi.
Re: Land Reforms
NWFP plebisicte went against India by a slender margin of 1% that too when congres made all the noise against landlords so to say that they supported pakistan is stretching it too far...... religion invokation usally among muslims churns many hearts, despite this if muslim league could achieve just 1% margin then it virtually a defeat.........
dude gaffara khan turned those warlike patahans into disciples of non-violence in those days u have no idea what a charismatic leader can achieve......
british's occupation was illegal so how can anyoe justify they leasing the land to these powerful among their own people but british stooge landlords....... face it 100 acres of land used to be leased on 1 rupee and arrangement was that landlords will collect tax and deposit it to british........... if u thik this is legal then u can very well bring back the british rule again even that will be legal.........
yes big landlords exisets even before british bevause mughal emprie was not very differen in character they too used to lease land on paltry sum to those who did their bidding ........
but point is whoever did this it can;t be justified........ land must be distributed among everyone whoever cultivated the land on behalf of those landlords should get the land......... who are theselandlords to dictate poor citizens life just because they did yester-year rulers bidding and got those land virtually free of cost doesn;t make them owner of those lands.......
Re: Land Reforms
"**In Punjab almost 99% of land belonged to non-Hindus. **During my history readings, I have come across one example of Sir Chotoo Raam being a big Hindu-landlord in Punjab. He off course always sided with Muslims landowners. " Don't you know that non-Hindus include Sikhs? Read baboo read!
Let's not delve into curse words like "choora chamars". That kind of language only suites them Bihari kids of Rubri Devi.
Muslims owned majority of land in both East and West Punjab before Aug 1947. There were few villages of Sikh landowners. After 1947, Muslims lost all 2.5 divisions of agri land in the East while gaining few villages in the West. The real winners of Punjab partitions were the Hindu and Sikhs. They gained the most expensive and prized part of Punjab that we all know is "land".
The true strength of non-Muslim Punjabis before 1947, was based on trading the raw material of Punjab produced by none other than Punjabi farmers. Pakistan survived against all those dire predicitons of pre-1947, because Punjabi farmers continued to feed the rest of the Pakistan. That simply showed that the true strength of any nation (including US of A) lies with land and the landownership. Learn Baboo learn!
If you continue calling Muslim Landowners of Punjab as "choora and chamars", well that simply shows your "almighty" roots extending all the way back to Rubri Devi.
Ok my bad about the non-hindu argument (i didn't see any mention of sikhs explicitely hence...).
As for choora / chamars, I am true on that. Who do you think these new acquired zamindars (who took over the land left by sikhs) were?