Paternalism for progress: Development of Canal Colonies in Punjab, Pakistan.

Colonialism has left deep rooted impact in many countries today. Centuries of expropriation and distortion of indigenous productive capacities combined with little social development have drastically changed the way countries operate today. As these societies attempt to develop their under developed state, many are handicapped by the state apparatus of the pre-colonial era. The long standing inequitable growth and inaccessibility of resources further inhibit any development initiatives. Punjab province of Pakistan is a relevant example for this development question, where development reforms were guided by political and socio-economic motives of the British Empire, and how they have affected the development process itself today. The late 19th century development concept of the 'canal colonies' introduced by the British Raj was an initiative to create a productive agrarian society in Punjab. Its implementation, however, follows a strategic path to harbor political support, and its analysis shows how its meaning has changed over time and the consequences that it brings for Pakistan today.

Punjab was completely barren at the time it was annexed by the British, however, the presence of five rivers posited a potential for developing a ‘model agricultural province’. Along with this, Punjab played a vital geo-political role as its loyalty could offer strong political support to the British. Thus, began a series of efforts to develop Punjab’s agricultural system along with the broader goal to maintain political security and stability. During the end of the 19th century, widespread utilitarian thought led many to conceive the sub-continent as ‘backward’ and in need for transforming its outmoded social and cultural practices in pursuit of ‘progress’. With more progress in the region, land was being transferred into the hands of informal money lenders who began to accumulate increasing ownership of land upon foreclosure of debts on mortgaged lands. The accumulation of wealth by these money lenders was seen as a threat to the empire. They feared that in a region where loyalty was imperative, this movement would undermine the very security and stability of the regime. The ‘Note on Land Transfer’ penned in 1895, explicitly takes note of this and says;”…a money lender can never take the place of the large ancestral landlord.” They lay the groundwork for the transition to canal colonies.

The famous BRB canal runs through the heart of present day Lahore

The idea was simple – the British would create an extensive network of villages and irrigation canals around the five rivers in Punjab and these regions would then be called the 'canal colonies'. The new settlement area was planned over 11 million acres of land with the landed rich to act as support for the beleaguered imperial state. More than 5 million acres of this ‘waste land’ was taken from original inhabitants by the Crown (or British State). Since propriety rights were a state formulated policy, the antecedent claims of the pastoral population was not recognized giving the state complete appropriation and utilization rights. The original inhabitants living in various clans and tribes, were given the names of janglis (illiterate) and were deemed to have no rights, culture or values and were driven off the land.

The construction of canal colonies lasted several decades, culminating in 1930. Punjab moved from being one of the poorest regions to the most agriculturally productive. The total area under cultivation increased sharply- 50 per cent from 1868 to 1921- and the proportion of canal irrigated area, from around 6 per cent to 36 per cent.7 The population rose by 18 percent between 1901 and 1911. This was met with a subsequent 22% increase in the urban population of these areas between 1911 and 19218. This entire process completely shifted the demography of the districts that constitute Pakistan today.

The entire act itself was much more complex than the simple action of providing water in the region. The twist arrives, when by official decree, the eligibility of these peasants for a canal colony was on account of being a ‘hereditary agriculturalist’. Hand in hand with this, the Land Alienation Act of 1900, was introduced which prevented the commercial castes (the informal money lenders) from acquiring land from the ‘incumbent agriculturalist’ tribes.

However, the pre-colonial landed aristocracy underpins the feudal system that we see in Pakistan today. The agricultural aristocracy continues, now as the feudal lords in these canal colonies. Over the decades, they have accumulated wealth and engaged in politics and military regimes. They now hold important positions in the state and military factions, thus thwarting any attempts at redistributing the disproportionate land holdings. Since 1947, there have been three wide scale unsuccessful attempts at land reforms in the country. The common view holds accountable the lack of enforcement mechanisms as a large number of those who sought to institutionalize them had profited from these canal colonies. This existing feudal system in most of rural Pakistan gives rise to a specific patron-client relationship which has far reaching implications vis-à-vis the socioeconomic and political domains governing the dynamics the canal colonies today. Despite working for the landlords for years and generations, the peasantry is not awarded property rights or access to means of production.

One could contrast these two centuries in the subcontinent to the Irish Land War. In late 19th century, rural Ireland faced similar tenancy laws by England and eventually led an agitation against them to revoke such laws. The agitation sought to improve the standing of tenant farmers and ultimately aimed for a redistribution of land to the tenants. Where the Irish eventually succeeded after a prolonged period of civil unrest, the subcontinent was just sowing seeds for a similar kind of labor and land misappropriation.

Conclusion

C.L. Tupper, who laid the foundations of Punjab’s customary law in 1880, said that, ‘a tribe

in the chains of its own customs, unrelaxed and unrefined, may still stand for centuries but a tribe lighted into the system of British administration, has in the guardianship of the governing body, the best possible chance of disusing savagery and learning the wisdom of civilized men’. However, over the decades to unfold, the canal colonies witnessed a contradictory economic pattern. Imperfect competition, unequal land holdings and limited innovation has thwarted potential for growth and increased the insecurity for the small scale farmers in Pakistan. The union of development and paternalism bequeathed a system that changed the very nature of how a nation’s development process unfolded. One could argue for faults in the implementation mechanism and not the idea. However, a concept that tears people away from the natural evolution and dismantles the very nature of their existence, also completely disregards the value of insurance and social kinship which could have strengthened the very same development process.