As one looked for an economic policy direction in the Prime Minister’s address to the nation on March 11, 03, a policy direction that would not be, during the current government’s tenure, was instead announced. That “there will be no land reforms” was the announcement made rather blatantly.

The big land owners were advised, in the same breath, to increase the area under cultivation without fear. The supporters of land reforms were advised not to raise “hollow slogans.” By the way, this would now also include the World Bank as they have come out openly in support of land reforms in Pakistan. The government ought to be careful as these provide the economic lifeline to our political governments too.

If land reforms that were at the centre of economic development in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and mainland China alike; then what is a substitute starting point for development in our country that experiences high concentration of land and assets and thereby a plethora of anti-development attitudes and behaviours that keep hindering all development efforts, direction, and thinking? In the absence of a substitute development worldview, rejection of proposed directions in development would lack basis and meaning.

Worst case scenario would be that such rejections might smack of deep-rooted class interests that are passed on to succeeding generations as our “culture,” and “values” that reinforce a system in which the term “values” is used synonymously and interchangeably with “disvalues.” Unless we learn to distinguish between the two, we will remain mired in a system that keeps promoting group or clan or tribal values at the expense of individual gain that alone can feed into the nation’s collective gain. This distinction we will, however, not be able to make until such time that the nation is put on the development path aspired by all.

It is important to further distinguish at this point between a ‘growth path’ and a ‘development path’ for the two may not converge if our approach is to ‘grow now distribute later.’ It is ‘growth-with-equity’ approach or better still ‘distribution-before-growth’ that can make the growth and development efforts converge. If the latter sounds too horrifying; then, at least promote growth-with-equity. “Grow now distribute later” is the archaic and obsolete trickle-down approach which our policy makers advocate without any inhibitions despite its obsolescence.

While they appear archaic to the development seekers, they are, however, thus endeared to the powers-that-be within and without which keeps them perched in their “coveted” positions however meaningless it might be in terms of the attainment of the goals of development. In the process, as growth may take place to a certain extent at rates which receive a passing grade from the IFIs, distribution takes place in favour of the owners of assets and means of production making them more powerful in the society who, by virtue of their socio-economic and thereby political power, succeed in making the possibility of development recede further into the future.

So, is it only growth in agricultural production that a laggard developing country should be seeking or should it be seeking to lay foundations of growth and development through the agricultural sector especially if over 65 per cent population is concentrated in the countryside and the sector still contributes 25 per cent to the GDP and immensely to deprivation and poverty? As mentioned earlier, focus only on increasing rates of agricultural production would redistribute more in favour of the owners of land thereby leading to growth-with-even-more inequity. As the rural populace is immiserized further, the land owners acquire more socio-economic and political power. Growth may occur but whither development which is development of all and not just that of a few landlords.

According to Agricultural Census of 1990 cited in SPDC’s Annual Review 01, the top 4 per cent of all rural households owned nearly half of the land in Sindh and Punjab. About 1.3 per cent of land owners holding over 50 acres hold about a third of the land of which 0.2 per cent of households with holdings of over 150 acres own 14 per cent of the land. Nearly half of all rural households in Sindh and Punjab own no land with another 25 per cent holding 5 acres or less. According to Pakistan Integrated Household Survey (PIHS) of 1998-99 also cited in SPDC’s above review, the percentage of rural landless households in Sindh increased from 64 per cent in 1990 to 69 per cent in 1998-99. That in Punjab increased from 27-49 per cent in different regions of the province to 55 per cent overall now. Balochistan and NWFP are known for their backwardness and a culture bordering the most primitive times ever, at places within these regions. A complete change in the mindsets is required there which only a few development projects can hardly bring about in the foreseeable future.

With such backwardness and highly skewed distribution of land ownership, is it conceivable to bring about a change for the better towards equity and justice when the land distribution by itself is most iniquitous and unjust and that too in a society where might is mostly right most of which goes absolutely contrary to even the principles of religion we profess to uphold whose keynote is “justice.” That the deprived should not be envious of those with abundance does not mean that those with abundance are above tests and trials. The test of those with abundance is how well the abundant resources are used so as to ensure onward distribution and sharing of abundance. Only then can deprivation and poverty be reduced or eradicated from the society.

The onus, therefore, lies on the ones who have. How has this religious obligation being discharged? The Pakistan Integrated Household Survey (PIHS) speaks volumes. The percentage of rural landless is rising. They become jobless vagrants and rural-urban migrants where too they are not being absorbed in the formal sectors as is obvious from swelling unemployment visible to the naked eye.

Would the advice to increase agricultural areas of cultivation, without fear of land reforms, lead to the attainment of the goals now professed by all? Could the anti-land reformers explain how it would lead to the goals of alleviation of poverty and deprivation and bring about greater equity and social justice that our religion stands for when the underlying premise is a gross unjust distribution of land which has hardly been deployed for the engagement of rural population and equitous distribution of the gains?

In the absence of a satisfactory answer to the above, we have the landed aristocrats allying with the upwardly mobile suave finance managers who either tend to shelter the former through their obsolete trickle-down approaches or tend to conceal their own positions on the issue of land reforms as it would be politically incorrect for them to proclaim otherwise and/or compensate for the above inadequacies by pushing forth a paradigm that may be ill-suited or premature for a developing country thus making the development path more convoluted than would otherwise be the case.

The nation is then fed with the palliatives of “trickle will reach,” “we work in the best interest of the people,” as we keep “Pakistan First.” It is, therefore, important to determine the meaning of “Pakistan First.” It is equally important to determine who determines what is “Pakistan First”? As what was said by the President in the context of the 2001 Afghan War may not be generalizeable or may appear hackneyed if over-used.

In the context of land reforms, is it in the nation’s interest to have rising rates of landlessness? Is it in the interest of Pakistan that we must have the kind of land concentration cited above? If yes, how has land concentration contributed to the development of Pakistan and how might its equitable distribution adversely affect Pakistan? Further, what have been the non-economic ramifications of this kind of acute concentration of land ownership? How have these fall-outs from land concentration impeded or helped growth and development? These non-economic fall-outs could be social as well as political. In order to deal with the socio-political fall-out too, the causes may be traced to politico-economic sources. The symptomatic fall-outs can, therefore, be dealt with only if the root source or cause is addressed. What is the core issue or the root cause here?

Who will then determine what is in the interest of Pakistan and what is meant by “Pakistan First”? By “Pakistan First” should obviously mean what the interest of Pakistan is? And, Pakistan’s interest is the interest of Pakistanis. So, is Pakistan’s interest the interest of a handful of big landlords or should it be the interest of the multitude getting dislocated, deprived, and poorer. Obviously, “Pakistan First” would be the interest of the multitude, by and large. The economic policies should then seek faster remedy of the inadequacies of policy packages a few push in the country for some of the reasons discussed herein. This, however, is not to be in the foreseeable future. Reason being that what is “Pakistan First” is determined by a few and not by the many. Consequently, it is the interest of the few that factors into national decision-making. Upshot is the announcement of “no land reforms” in nation’s prime time. While this was going without saying thus far, positive fall-out could be that the mind of the landed aristocracy at the helm could be engaged in a discourse on the subject. It is for Prime Minister Jamali to prove that he will also try to represent the nation by determining “Pakistan First” collectively and not in isolation with a small group of wealthy elite-landed and/or otherwise.