Landowners Still in Exile From Unstable Pakistan Area - NYTimes.com.
This story makes interesting reading. I suppose that the reader's knee-jerk reaction is supposed to be in support of the landlords, the landholders, and somehow against the landless folks who have the nerve to think that they are just as entitled to access to land.
It would be interesting to know
And what is our government's position on this? Do the landholders have rights that are superior to the rights of the landless?
And what do the American people think?
This story makes interesting reading. I suppose that the reader's knee-jerk reaction is supposed to be in support of the landlords, the landholders, and somehow against the landless folks who have the nerve to think that they are just as entitled to access to land.
About four dozen landlords were singled out over the past two years by the militants in a strategy intended to foment a class struggle.
In some areas, the Taliban rewarded the landless peasants with profits
of the crops of the landlords. Some resentful peasants even signed up
as the Taliban’s shock troops. ...
The landlords, many of whom raised sizable militias to fight the Taliban themselves last year, say the army is again failing to provide enough protection if they return.
Another deterrent to returning, they say, is that the top Taliban leadership, responsible for taking aim at the landlords and spreading the spoils among the landless, remains unscathed.
If it continues, the landlords’ absence will have lasting ramifications not only for Swat, but also for Pakistan’s most populated province, Punjab, where the landholdings are vast, and the militants are gaining power, said Vali Nasr, a senior adviser to Mr. Holbrooke, the American envoy.
“If the large landowners are kept out by the Taliban, the result will in effect be property redistribution,” Mr. Nasr said. “That will create a vested community of support for the Taliban that will see benefit in the absence of landlords.”
At two major meetings with the landlords, the Pakistani military and civilian authorities requested that they return in the vanguard of the refugees. None have agreed to do so, according to several of the landowners and a senior army officer.
The landlords, many of whom raised sizable militias to fight the Taliban themselves last year, say the army is again failing to provide enough protection if they return.
Another deterrent to returning, they say, is that the top Taliban leadership, responsible for taking aim at the landlords and spreading the spoils among the landless, remains unscathed.
If it continues, the landlords’ absence will have lasting ramifications not only for Swat, but also for Pakistan’s most populated province, Punjab, where the landholdings are vast, and the militants are gaining power, said Vali Nasr, a senior adviser to Mr. Holbrooke, the American envoy.
“If the large landowners are kept out by the Taliban, the result will in effect be property redistribution,” Mr. Nasr said. “That will create a vested community of support for the Taliban that will see benefit in the absence of landlords.”
At two major meetings with the landlords, the Pakistani military and civilian authorities requested that they return in the vanguard of the refugees. None have agreed to do so, according to several of the landowners and a senior army officer.
It would be interesting to know
- what it is the landless people want;
- what percentage of the people are landless;
- what percentage are landed;
- what percentage of the crop the landed expect the landless to pay them for access to "their" land.
And what is our government's position on this? Do the landholders have rights that are superior to the rights of the landless?
And what do the American people think?
Comments