July 03, 2009
Post-Civil War America (1865-1900) and Post-Independence Pakistan
The end of the Civil War (1865) in America marked the beginning of a host of daunting challenges for the nation still in a formative stage.
The culmination of the struggle of the Muslims of India in the creation of Pakistan in 1947 posed similarly numerous challenges to the nascent State. To a student of history, a comparative study of how each responded to its respective challenges offers much food for thought.
The victory of the Unionists of the North under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln did not mean that the Confederates of the South had accepted mentally the Unionist precepts. The assassination of Lincoln by a Southern extremist reflected the mental reservation of at least some. The aristocrats of the South whose plantations were tended by the black slaves were reluctant to allow them freedom as laid down in the Emancipation Act.
The Federal authorities had to make special efforts to secure the rights and social status for the blacks. A “Freedmen’s Bureau” was set up to get better and independent jobs to the blacks as well as to ensure adequate educational facilities for the black children. Even Martial Law was imposed on some Southern states in 1867 to ensure that they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and did not hamper the right of the blacks to vote.
The areas that constituted the present day Pakistan had an agrarian economy dominated by rural aristocracy – the feudal landlords. They treated the tillers of their soil, the serfs, no better than the black slaves. And, after independence, they consolidated their hold on their vassals by securing political power through the votes of those very vassals. They used their influence to see that no school was set up by the government in their fiefdoms so that no awakening came to their serfs. With the passage of time, the situation improved but only slightly. Land reforms promulgated with a lot of hype by President Ayub and Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto merely tinkered with the problem. The basic structure of the relationship between the landlord and his serfs remained unchanged.
Mr. Jamali, Prime Minister (Nov 2002 to June 2006) in his very first address to the Parliament gave a solemn assurance against any land reforms during the tenure of his administration. He was either trying to be honest enough to avoid making any false promise or was feeling confident enough in the support of his fellow land barons in the Assembly to indulge in the promise. Rural India’s rejection of BJP in the recent elections has understandably caused no stir among our aristocrats. Their security was beyond challenge.
The status of the blacks in America is much better now than a century back thanks chiefly to the fast growing economic opportunities. But more important was the realization by the policy makers that by bringing the erstwhile slaves into the mainstream of national life will make for the overall progress of the nation. The trend led to the election of an Afro-American in the elections last year. Barack Obama is now the President and making his mark as an exceptionally high achiever.
Another community, which posed a similar challenge, was that of
the Red Indians. They lived on the vast grasslands, called prairies, west of Mississippi river, in harmony with nature. Once the transcontinental railway was completed in 1869, the rush on Indian lands became a stampede. Their buffaloes, the chief source of livelihood, were killed and the Indians were moved to reservations and provided food and shelter. Many could not adapt to the white man’s way of life and died of starvation or disease. Some moved to South America. In 1871, the Congress ended the practice of treating the Indian tribes as separate nations. Efforts were made to assimilate them into the white man’s world. But, going from security to poverty, from freedom to confinement, from power to humiliation was degrading to the Indians of the plains.
With the commission of the transcontinental railroad, a torrent of settlers moved from the East to the West. Between 1865 and 1900 some half a million families moved west. These settlers were granted lands and other facilities almost free of cost. Many set up vast ranches and agricultural farms catering to the demands of the Eastern states. Technology entered farming methods. Invention of a powerful rifle enabled the farmers to kill buffalo in thousands to simply end their nuisance of spoiling the cultivated fields. The hurdles having thus removed, America was now ready to innovate, to create and experiment with novel ideas and to fulfil the dream of anyone who was willing to apply what it takes to achieve that dream.
Early years of Pakistan were spent in the rehabilitation of millions of refugees who had migrated from India to the land of their dreams too. These newcomers were generally better educated than the local population and were charged with an intense desire to labor and live well. They built colonies in Karachi and other urban areas and enriched different professions. In the first decade of the new state’s existence, they ran the administration and worked a democratic system. Soon they found that their zeal was curtailed by provincial quotas and special privileges of the landed aristocracy and urban elite. Nevertheless, in the first two decades of the new state, they succeeded in setting up new industries. The government too set up the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), which started new industries and sold them to private enterprises. Visitors to Pakistan returned much impressed by the progress made by the country in agriculture, industry, women’s liberation and above all, higher education. Several new universities were set up. There was a move of the rural population to urban areas in search of better opportunities of livelihood.
This was not to the liking of the feudal lords whose status was naturally waning compared with the industrialists and businessmen. Mr. Z. A. Bhutto, a big landlord, became the Prime Minister of the country in December 1971 and nationalized all key industries in the name of social justice. He argued that a few industrial families had accumulated the wealth of the country. Nationalization of basic industries doomed the economy and dampened the spirit of the entrepreneurs to set up new enterprises. Politically, it strangulated the well-educated urban elite, the industrialists or their surrogates, and strengthened the grip of the feudal barons on the reins of political power.
America was, on the other hand, in the making after the early problems of the blacks and Indians and their buffalos and lands and the legal framework of judicious governance were settled.
New building technologies transferred the nation’s cities. Immigrants expanded the nation’s workforce. New inventions, new methods of manufacturing and new ways to sell products, turned America into a great industrial state. Between 1860 and 1900 some 676,000 patents were filed with the registration office. Many of the inventions made in the US became part of the daily life everywhere in the world. Invention of electric light, telephone, telegraph, etc. radically changed city life and marked the advent of modern age of communication and increased the speed of business. The momentum kept increasing with the passage of time.
After the first two decades of its existence, Pakistan had to cope with the drags of feudalism and military rule. The ruling elite used religion to soften the frustrations of the people particularly of those who were willing to undergo any amount of hard work to move ahead. While their prophet had urged them to acquire knowledge at any cost and struggle to advance in this world, their misguided Mullas preached that people should concentrate efforts on bettering the hereafter instead of struggling for a better life here. This negative spell came is easily for exploitation during the war in Afghanistan against Russia - the infidel invader of a Muslim society.
Had Bhutto not hampered the industrialization of the country and maintained the growth momentum, had Zia concentrated on national development instead of sinking the nation into the Afghan war, Pakistan would have marched forward economically and socially on the American pattern. The two stints each of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir constituted perhaps the most barren and negative period of Pakistan’s history.
Musharraf’s rule of almost a decade avoided any tampering with the feudal structure of the society as the Generals were allotted substantial public agricultural lands to have an identity of interest with the traditional land barons.
The present rulers, Zardari and Gilani, are out and out feudal lords. The national parliament is also full of them. Unless the antiquated structure of land ownership is totally reformed, Pakistan will remain dependent on imports to feed its people despite a vast majority of them continuing to till the soil, not as owners but as vassals.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the US, advocated
strongly that American economy should be based not on an agrarian past but on a commercial and industrial future. Only through the liberation of capital from local landed interests could America tap into its most powerful resource, that is the energy and enterprise of the American people. Following that advice has turned the US into the most productive nation of the world. India too has been following that path, but Pakistan’s economy remains tied to the apron strings of feudal lords and might end up serving as the kitchen garden of a throbbing, thriving industrial India.
arifhussaini@hotmail.com
