2.A. Forms of Land Tenure
There is very little information on land tenure systems
in Pakistan and their distribution. The frequent reference
to the traditional revenue systems (zamindari, mahalwarj,
ryotwari, etc.) is not very revealing either. While they are
important for understanding the historical development of
the current land tenure situation, they are not of much use
in explaining the present tenure conditions. The Agricultural
Census of Pakistan distinguishes three forms of tenure: owners'
farms, tenants' farms and owner-cum-tenants' farms, but as
there is a wide variation within these three groups, census
figures explain to a very limited extent only, the current
land tenure situation. The census does not provide any information
on patterns of ownership and actual managing units.
In view of this situation, an attempt is made here to classify
the rural households in seven land tenure categories which
are meaningful from the standpoint of rural development (Tribal
tenure systems, including the sardari system, are not dealt
with here). The number of households given for each category
is a rough estimate derived from the available census information
and is intended to give an order of magnitude only* In this
chapter the situation at the beginning of the 1960s is outlined
while the changes brought about by the green revolution and
its consequences are explained in the following chapter.
The seven important land tenure categories and their characteristics,
as in the early 1960s are as follows:
1. Landlords
This type of tenure comprises persons owning more than 150
acres of irrigated land or 300 acres of non-irrigated land.
They number about 12 000 - 15 000. The productivity of these
estates - before the green revolution - varied greatly. The
cropping intensity of the land was lower than in any other
category. The benefits of economies of scale played no role
as these farms were not cultivated in one unit but divided
into numerous small plots which were cultivated by tenants,
usually under the batai-system 1/ This also determined he
cropping system. Crops easy to control and to distribute after
the harvest, i.e. especially grain, were favoured, and animal
husbandry, the cultivation of vegetables, etc. hardly played
any role. The landlord's interest in his land varied and,
in many cases, he left control of his land to a supervisor,
while he lived in town as an absentee landlord. His life style
was quite different from that of the rest of the rural population,
and landownership was often not only a means of earning a
living but also a source of prestige and economic power which,
again, was the basis of political power. The role of the landed
aristocracy on the political scene of this country is too
well known to deserve detailed description. The relation of
landlords and tenants was feudalistic: economic dependency
of the tenant who had to be personally loyal to his landlord,
often reciprocated by the customary responsibility of the
landlord for his dependents, i.e. help in need, old age and
illness, representation in matters to be settled with outsiders,
etc* While many landlords fulfilled their duties in this patriarchalistic
relationship, the feudalistic system offered possibilities
for exploitation, and many tenants were literally at the mercy
of their landlord. Under that system, capital formation was
completely left to the landlord who, from his income, had
to maintain roads, canals, etc., (partly with the unpaid labour
of his tenants)* However, a landlord's lifestyle involved
quite a bit of capital transfer from rural to urban areas
in the form of urban houses, children's education, migration
of family members to town and engagement in business activities,
and considerable spending on luxury items instead of promoting
agricultural development.
2. Small landlords
This category comprises persons owning 25 to 150 acres of
irrigated land or the equivalent amount of barani land. 2/
Their number has been estimated to be about 200 000 to 250
000. Holdings above 25 acres, usually require more than two
pairs of bullocks for cultivation, and in 1960 self-cultivation
was not so much in vogue as it is today; the land was frequently
rented out to tenants while the owner merely supervised. Much
of what has been said about the category of Landlords applies
here as well, tout on a more limited scale* The main difference
between the two groups - apart from the acreage owned and
income earned - is that the latter consisted less frequently
of absentee owners and took more interest in the cultivation
of its land. This often led to a stricter supervision of tenants,
literally control during day and night. On the other hand,
a more personal relationship resulting from life-long and
sometimes hereditary relations was involved. The result of
those landlords' greater interest in the land was a higher
amount of capital formation and reinvestment in agriculture
(levelling, land reclamation, improvement of irrigation, etc.).
The improved economic condition of these small landowners
who, compared to the masses of the rural people were better
educated and better informed, gave them political power and
influence. While political leadership at the national level
is mostly entrusted to members of the first category, this
group controls decision making at district or divisional level,
and is often related to senior administrative officers. As
will be explained later, this group underwent considerable
changes while new technology was being introduced.
3. Family owner-cultivators
This group of landowners includes all those possessing 7,5
to 25 acres of irrigated land or a corresponding area of non-irrigated
land. They number about 300 000. They personally cultivate
their land with one or two pairs of bullocks, and in the upper
size range, may hire a farmhand. Basically, however, fanning
is a family enterprise and it is in this group that agricultural
activities are not only a means of earning a living but also
a way of life. Some owner-cultivators have increased their
farm acreage by renting some land in addition to that owned.
This group forms the upper class of the village society, especially
if no landlord resides there. They enjoy relative economic
security, reasonable income and the prestige resulting from
being a landowner. Usually, they belong to a respected caste
(zat) which improves their position even more. They control
village politics, occupy posts at union council level, in
cooperatives, etc. and are very often, excellent farmers with
all the positive attributes of family farms, i.e. they achieve
high cropping intensity and non-monetary capital formation
to improve the farm, etc.
4. Marginal owner-cultivators
Persons belonging to this category own less than 7,5 acres
of irrigated land or the equivalent, some of them renting
areas to enlarge their holdings. They number about 1 600 000
and control about 3 600 000 acres of farm land. This group
consists of subsistence farmers as the average farm size is
only 2*2 acres. In addition, many of these small peasants
have to work as agricultural labourers in order to earn a
living, and farming their own land is frequently only a side-
(part-time) occupation. Of all the groups, this is the one
with the highest cropping intensity. The cropping pattern
reflects the requirements for subsistence, and the limited
acreage has to be used completely for food production so that
hardly any land is left for fodder cultivation. People substitute
labour for land by feeding their animals with grass and weeds
collected by family members at roadsides, near canals, etc.
As the acreage does not suffice for their subsistence requirements,
this group is not involved in the marketing process (which
means that they are not influenced by product prices). They
earn the little cash they need for their meagre level of living
as remuneration for manual labour on large farms, in road
construction, etc., or from the sale of goods they are given
as payment in kind for this work* This group is a permanent
and secure labour resource for larger farmers. Because of
their ownership pattern they are bound to the village, but
have to look for additional employment opportunities locally
and these are often available from large landowners only*
Among some of the marginal cultivators, because of the frequent
partition through inheritance, especially in the old settled
districts, underemployment is quite common and a considerable
number of this category belong to the rural poor. As landowners,
they enjoy a certain prestige which, however, is not reflected
in their economic welfare. Indebtedness often worsens their
situation.
5. Tenants of better standing
This category is rather heterogeneous and consists of tenants
with larger farms (over 1?.5 acres of irrigated land) and
of those who, in addition to their rented land, have some
acres of their own which gives them a certain status and security.
They number about 750 000 and work on as much as 15 million
acres of farm land. Some of them are tenants of government
land. Others are rather independent tenants of a larger tract
of land belonging to a landlord. Usually, their cultivation
is of superior level and landlords often rent large areas
to them because they improve the quality of the land by their
good cultivation practices. The lease is usually for several
years, often on written contracts, and those tenants are mostly
independent of the landlord as regards cultivation. They are
tenants in the European sense of the word and the shortcomings
of Asian tenancy do not usually apply to them.
6. Tenants-at-will
The category of tenants-at-will comprises all other tenants
and numbers about 1 800 000 cultivating about 8 500 000 acres
of farm land. The most frequent system of tenancy for this
group is the batai, in which the gross produce is shared by
landlord and tenant, usually at a 50:50 rate, but with varying
degrees of participation of landlords in the production costs.
The lease is mostly without contract and for one year or one
season only, often however, with prolongation for a long period
but without security for the tenant. This lease arrangement
hinders investment by the tenants, and the landlord also has
little incentive, as proceeds are shared so that only half
of the return goes to the investor. The peculiar landlord-tenant
relationship influences the cropping pattern. As the landlord
is interested in easily controllable and marketable crops,
he discourages animal husbandry and cultivation of vegetables
by tenants. The result of the high demand for land is that
the acreage allotted to each tenant is small. Thus, the labour
input of the tenant is high, and the landlord's share is positively
influenced. This may lead to underemployment of tenants, at
least seasonally, thus causing low income, indebtedness and
increasing dependence of the tenant. On the other hand, few
are in a position to supplement their income by offering their
labour because landlords discourage this for fear that the
cultivation of their land will be neglected. Tenants have
little incentive to apply more labour than is customary to
the land as they receive only 50 percent of the proceeds achieved
with their extra efforts. Several attempts at improving the
tenancy situation by legislation have failed because these
laws are against the prevailing market procedure and are therefore
difficult to enforce.
7. Landless rural labour
This group is composed of persons living mainly from the
land, but with no direct tenure in land. Their relation to
land is indirect: they provide their labour to landowners
and cultivators against a share of the produce. The number
of landless rural labourers is estimated to be about 550 000.
It must be mentioned that the actual number of rural labourers
is larger, but some succeeded in fulfilling their wish of
owning or at least renting a little land and are, therefore,
incorporated in the category of "marginal owner-cultivators"
or "tenants-at-wi11". Among the rural labourers,
one has to differentiate between three distinct groups:
a) The kammis or sepis provide the technical
and social services which are necessary in a rural community
and work, for instance, as blacksmiths, carpenters, potters,
weavers, barbers, etc., and also perform certain social
services. Their work is regulated by the customary "sep"-system
which requires them to do all the necessary work in their
special craft against an annual lump sum remuneration by
the farmers of the village, or, in the case of a large village,
by a certain group of farmers. In addition to their professional
work, they have to provide their labour free of charge,
except meals, to landowners for such activities as construction
of houses, etc. Quite often, they are unemployed, but they
have to be ready for work whenever summoned and are not
allowed to offer their labour to other parties.
b) Permanent labourers have a full-time
contract with a specific cultivator, usually on an annual
or seasonal basis and often against payment in kind. They
run no risk of being unemployed during the time covered
by their contract, and very often their relation with a
certain cultivator is long-lasting.
c) The largest group is that of casual labourers
who have no definite relation to an employer, but offer
their labour to whomevwr weeds it, such as in agriculture,
road construction, transportation, petty trade and other
escape jobs, or whatever they can find. Quite often, they
do not find work at all and are unemployed. The poorest
rural families are found in this group. That they can earn
their living at all - especially in the more densely populated
areas, where their number is large - is due to the unusually
high wages paid at harvest time, when they are in great
demand. Schematically, they earn their living by working
at harvest rate (three times the normal wage rate for the
long working day) for about three months per year (wandering
to different areas), another three months at the normal
wage rate, while during the remaining six months of the
year they are unemployed. Their annual income in this calculation
equals 12 times the normal wage rate which suffices for
a meagre living. At the time under discussion, the beginning
of the 1960s, their number was growing rapidly on account
of population increase in excess of new jobs. In areas with
a higher concentration of landless casual labourers, their
situation was steadily worsening.
---------
1/ Rent system with rent paid in kind as a certain proportion
of the produce (share-tenancy).
2/ Land dependent on rainfall for cultivation.
|