Syed Bakhtiyar Kazmi
“Make sure it is deleted”. With those crisp and clear instructions, he cut the line. Will they never stop talking about land reforms, the Man wondered, even the Economist seems to have joined the debate; land reforms are fast becoming a global conspiracy. He had already informed his employers that he did not have the wherewithal to delete the Economist’s content from the Worldwide Web; and while removing domestic content was still doable, he brooded for how long. Why don’t they just give up and forget about the rich exploiting land? On the other hand, if everyone just did that, and stopped pushing for land reforms, people like him would be jobless. He grinned mischievously, if it was not for this stupid democracy, there would be far less income inequality in this world; that the Man knew was the absolute truth!
Above is an attempt at satirical fiction, built upon the knowledge that my last week’s article was not available on the net. The truth, however, was that there was a technical glitch at the publication which was resolved and the article is now on the net; but a sinister twist is always more enjoyable to read. As is, we, the Pakistanis, prefer conspiratorial stories over facts; facts are rather boring!
Interestingly, the one and only comment I got on last week’s article on land was about allowing real estate development on agricultural land; in a struggling agricultural economy, building real estate for the rich on land which feeds the poor verges on immoral. Apparently, the government and the state are not able to understand.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” Upton Sinclair. The conclusion which can be drawn on the basis of this rather impeccable quote is that political institutions, and their cadre, are perhaps the primary beneficiaries of the status quo, which is why complicated conspiracies have been allowed to flourish resulting in deferment of rational actions necessary for inclusive economic growth.
And I don’t believe that this insight is restricted to reforms only; the nation struggles to build Big Dams because of disputes which, considering the repercussions, are absolutely unfathomable. A few politicians have most recently picked up the gauntlet and become champions for advocating steps to manage water stress, but even for them Kala Bagh Dam is apparently a taboo subject. Dear readers, Pakistan being water-stressed is not an abstract notion, it is real. If we don’t move very quickly, in less than a decade, we might even have sacrificed food self-sustainability. Also understand that agriculture remains by far the primary source of employment for the majority of Pakistanis, and there will be no agriculture if there is no water; and obviously no economic growth! Land needs water.
It is also extremely curious that Dewani courts continue to survive in a nation which claims to be a capitalist economy and a democracy to boot; clear property rights are the backbone of capitalism, and I continue to wonder why voters have never raised this issue with the politicians whom they continue to vote for and elect; something clearly wrong with democracy’s narrative. The equity capital blocked because of the Dewani cases, once released, has the potential to elevate Pakistan into the top 10 economies of the world; I kid you not.
“Buy land, they’re not making it anymore,” Mark Twain. Perhaps this is the key principle developing nations need to understand; if a nation cannot capitalize on it biggest asset for economic growth, it will continue to struggle and keep building narratives based on flimsy arguments linked to GDP. Everybody borrows as a percentage of GDP is hardly an appropriate argument for claiming borrowing of more money as an achievement. Someday, I hope to eventually get down to writing articles to destroy the GDP myth.
“For people whose livelihoods and culture depends upon the land, secure land rights are essential. They enable farmers to take out loans, increase their crop yields, and build a secure future for their families and communities,” from the book “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth. And as pointed out by the Economist, in a country with abundant labour, small agricultural land holding makes perfect sense; that might even address the issue of unmanageable immigration to urban areas in search of employment. So why there is a dearth of Robin Hood styled NGOs who buy land from the rich and give to the poor?
If my fictional satire at the beginning turns out to be even fractionally perceptive, then this article may also disappear from the net. The silent majority will sit in their offices with their morning java, read this article and nod their heads, and forget about land issues by evening. I have also exhausted my library of facts and arguments and waiting for the Man to quickly send the lifafa. On the other hand, I fast realize that writing about political scandals rather than real issues facing the nation is perhaps a more lucrative pastime. “Income inequality”, “inclusive economic growth”, “poverty alleviation” and anything to do with land for the poor are only catchy political slogans and fodder for coffee table discussions of the civic society, and nothing more!
(The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. Email: [email protected])
