Daily Times

A key element of election slogans was ‘change’. The nitty-gritty of the ‘change’ remained a strictly guarded mumbo jumbo. Sincerity demanded that the parties should have spelled out their policies with regard to various factors of production, i.e. land, natural resources, the socio-economic milieu, labour, capital and organisation. The leaders kept mum about their agenda. However, they kept pandering to the baser sentiments. There were claims that electricity load shedding would end in a short time. In their hearts, the leaders knew that the voters have little choice. They would vote either for the charisma of one leader or against the hatred of another. The voters would not force the leaders to give a dispassionate perception of the country’s problems along with an inventory of prioritised solutions.

Intellectual apathy had been the hallmark of elections. Here in our country, there is no tradition of political parties having shadow cabinets with a bagful of alternative policies. The political empty-mindedness is obvious from the federal budget for year 2013-14. This stereotyped budget is heavily loaded with taxes. The finance minister dished out to the people whatever was cooked up by ministerial babus (bureaucrats).

As usual, the bulk of the expected revenue would go into the pockets of the revenue collectors. And the revenue targets would all be missed. The taxation proposals did little to squeeze the haves. Nothing was done to reduce inequitable distribution of wealth and economic power.

No heed was paid to the structure of our society. How did the filthy rich, the feudal lords and the industrial robber barons come into being? If accumulated wealth in a few hands is rooted in wrongdoing, a considerable chunk of it should be mopped up. Peep into the pre-partition gazetteers and you would know the patrilineage of many of today’s Tiwanas, Nawabs, Pirs, Syed, Faqirs, Qizilbashs, Kharrals, Gakkhars, and their ilk.

The British created a class of chieftains to suit their need for loyalists, war fundraisers and recruiters in the post-’mutiny’ period and during the Second World War. A gubernatorial gazetteer states: “I have for many years felt convinced that the time had arrived for the Government to try to introduce some distinction for those who can show hereditary services before the Hon’ble Company’s rule in India ceased. I have often said that I should be proud to wear a Copper Order, bearing merely the words ‘Teesri pusht Sirkar Company ka Naukar’ (Third generation Company’s servant).”

A feudal aristocracy was created whose generations ruled post-independence governments.

Some pirs and mashaikh (religious leaders) even quoted verses from the Holy Quran to justify allegiance to the Englishman (amir), after loyalty to Allah and the Messenger (PBUH). They pointed out that the Quran ordained that ehsan (favour) be returned with favour. The ehsan were British favours like titles (khan bahadur, nabob, etc), honorary medals, khilat with attached money rewards, life pensions, office of honorary magistrate, assistant commissioner, courtier, etc. A Tiwana military officer even testified in favour of O’Dwyer when the latter was under trial. Ayub Khan added the chapter of 22 families to the aristocracy, a legacy of the English Raj.

At this stage, the government cannot ask: ‘How did your forefathers amass so much wealth’? But it could at least impose some kind of capital levy or inheritance tax on the wealth holders to pay off the public debt.

About 460 scions of the pre-partition chiefs along with industrial barons created in the Ayub era are returned again and again to the Assemblies. They do not allow agricultural incomes, industrials profits or real estate to be adequately taxed. If only one tax, that is capital levy or inheritance tax could be imposed, there would be no need to impose any other tax. This tax would have no burden on the poor, already crushed people of Pakistan. A capital levy is a one-time tax on all wealth holders with the goal of retiring public debt. In theory the imposition of this levy can improve welfare when adopted to redress debt problems created by special circumstances like ours. There is no fear of flight of capital. There is little profit in keeping money in foreign vaults. Foreign powers devoured even the billions stashed in foreign accounts by the Shah of Iran and Moammar al Gaddafi.

Our parliament should examine this proposal. Islam does not approve of unearned wealth. We know of the decision by Hazrat Omar (May Allah be Pleased with him) in regard to Fei lands. He disapproved of land as maal-e-ghaneemat because it would create generations upon generations of wealthy landowners.

About the English bakhsheesh of land and other favours, the government should consult Hafiz Taqi Usmani (and other scholars) who wrote landmark decisions involving considerations of the Land Acquisition Act and land reforms.

The writer has been contributing freelance for around 40 years. He is the author of Terrorism, Jihad, Nukes and other Issues in Focus and The Dark Side of Democracy — India-Pakistan Context