"Very simple …"
Mehar Abdul Sattar, the 37 years old general secretary of Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP), is a graduate in Plant Pathology from Agriculture University, Faisalabad, and a resident of Chak 4/4L Okara military farm. He was a student when the military farm administration introduced a system of cultivation for tenants in 2000. Being the son of a tenant, Mehar naturally joined the resistance movement, eventually becoming the GS of AMP.

"..a dispute both sides believe they cannot afford to lose"
--Ali Hasan Dayan, Senior Researcher, South Asia, Human Rights Watch (HRW)
The News on Sunday: Why did the Human Rights Watch decide to do a report on the military farms in Okara?
Ali Hasan Dayan: Until the Lawyer's Movement in 2007, the Okara military farms dispute provided the most compelling example of local resistance to the military's monopoly on privilege, power and land in its heartland -- the Punjab.

status
Land rights or wrongs
The tenants' struggle is a political rather than a narrowly legalistic one
By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
Almost 9 years ago, soon after General Pervez Musharraf had taken power, a seemingly innocuous attempt by the authorities of the so-called Okara military farms to change the tenure status of thousands of tenants who had tilled these state-owned lands for decades triggered the emergence of the movement which I believe was the beginning of the end for the military regime. Few would have guessed that the plains of central Punjab -- the traditional heartland of the military's power -- would be the site of a highly symbolic struggle against the deeply entrenched corporate power of the men in khaki.

In the political court
PPP, PML-N vow to solve the tenants' issue through negotiations
By Waqar Gillani
It seems that the two main political parties of Punjab -- Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz -- have taken due note of the worsening situation at Okara military farms and hope to reach a settlement through negotiations.
Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Sohna, provincial minister for Labour and a PPP MPA from Okara, tells TNS that the party is well aware of the tenants' movement and has offered help already. "Since the matter is to be dealt with by the federal government we are going to make recommendations to President Asif Ali Zardari after he returns from his foreign tour.

"This land is… for institutional use"
--Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) spokesperson
By Nadeem Iqbal
The News on Sunday: What is the background of the remount and military farms of the Pakistan Army?
ISPR Spokesperson: Remount farms can be divided into two -- those that deal with animal breeding for military operation and those that provide troops with dairy products and fodder for the mules and horses etc.

Journalistically, the issue of Okara Military Farms has not been easy to handle. The issue first cropped up in the year 2000 when the military, running these farms along with several others across the country on lease to provide "fodder for the armed forces", arbitrarily switched from share-cropping to land on rent system.

The high court gave a decision against a couple of tenants and the Pakistan Rangers were called in to implement that decision. There were protests, rioting, and even killings.

There was sketchy coverage of the issue in the media and for obvious reasons. Initially there was censorship which later turned into self-censorship.

But Okara became a special case. Here started a political organisation of sorts and the tenants got together to fight for their rights and laid the foundations of Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP). They weren't much bothered even if the media decided to ignore them. From what began as a protest against a change of rent collecting system -- from cash to kind -- they have covered a long distance. The slogan now is 'Malki ya Maut' (ownership or death).

The legal slope is slippery for all stakeholders. The military's lease is supposed to have been expired in 1938 and was never renewed. The tenants who have tilled the land for about a century have no legal claim either under the Tenancy Act in place. The Punjab government, which is technically the legal owner of the land, is practically unable to reclaim this land, given the military's high stakes as a corporate entity.

So what then is the solution? It may be hard to come by through legal wrangling. The solution has to be political and the two major parties, which had signed the Charter of Democracy that spoke against military's occupation of land, must now be questioned on it. The archaic law did not envisage the democratic norms of twentieth century and later, and must be replaced with a more humane and equitable law because that essentially is the purpose of laws -- to serve the interests of people. The issue has to be weaved in with the broader issue of land reforms in the country which is very much a political project.

This is the first time that the military's point of view appears in such detail. Ironically, it is now willing to sit with the tenants on the negotiating table and revert to the share-cropping system. But will the tenants, united under the banner of AMP, be ready to settle on anything less than the slogan they have raised?

The murder of three tenants allegedly by an agriculture land contractor of the military farm in Kulyana Estate, Okara, on April 6, 2009, has once again brought to light the growing tension between the farm authorities and the tenants in the region.

On April 7, 2009, thousands of tenants from different military farms gathered at Chak 28A-2R in Kulyana Estate as a protest to attend the funeral of three fellow villagers. "I've come all the way from (the military farms at) Haveli Lakha in District Pakpattan to offer my condolences," said Iqbal Bibi, 45, a mother of four, while talking to TNS. "They were not my relatives; I am here because I can relate with them."

Iqbal Bibi was accompanied by her family and about 500 others from her village. "We are not afraid of being killed. The military and its agents can kill us but they cannot force us to quit our stance. One day they will have to account for their atrocities."

District Okara's history shows the seeds of trouble between the military farm administrations and the tenants were sown at the turn of the century when the former forcibly tried to replace the age-old crop-sharing system of cultivation with cash-rent and yearly lease system. The tenants who had tilled the land through generations felt the new system was meant to have them evicted.

"There was no problem between the military farm administrations and the tenants before the introduction of the new system in June 2000," says Nadeem Ashraf, Vice President, Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP), talking exclusively to TNS. (For a detailed version, see the interview with AMP Secretary General, Mehar Abdul Sattar

The farm authorities wanted to change the status of tenants to that of 'contractors' because under The Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 the tenants enjoyed certain rights and it would be hard to evict them from the lands they have been cultivating for ages. The new system would see them leaving the land at a six-month notice.

Interestingly, the tyrannies on the part of the farm administration served to unite the tenants belonging to different villages and farms, giving birth to a radical movement under the flag of AMP.

Academics believe that the military, in a bid to implement the new system of agriculture, forced the tenants to resist. "Till 2000, these people were giving 50 per cent of their crops to the military and were actually serving the military like anything," says Asad Farooq, Assistant Professor, Department of Law and Policy, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, LUMS.

Currently penning a book on the tenants' movement, Farooq says the movement in Okara is a "very healthy sign for a society where we only hear about terrorism, fundamentalism and Talibanisation.

"AMP is talking about the real issues of the people of Pakistan. There is a complete shift in the attitude of the tenants over the past nine years since the movement began. And if they (the tenants) succeed in evolving a substantial political force it will be a giant leap towards the solution of Pakistan's problems."

Locals claim during the period from 2000 till present times, 11 tenants have been killed in different incidents by the law-enforcing agencies of Pakistan or by the influential civilian contractor of agriculture land of the area. The farm administrations have also variously applied all available tactics to pressurise the tenants to accept the new system of cultivation.

"In 2002, Pakistan Rangers put our village under virtual siege for two months. They stopped irrigation canal water to our Chak for three months and cut the main telephone line of the village while seven employees of different military farms of the village were also terminated because their parents/relatives living in Chaks of the military farms were involved in anti-state activities," says Muhammad Ibrahim, a 60 years old Numberdar of Chak 4/4L.

"So far, they have been reinstated. They also arrested more than 400 people including children from the village. To mount more pressure on the tenants, the farm administration arrested the sons-in-law of many residents of the village."

According to Ibrahim, these "tactics" further strengthen them to oppose the new system of cultivation. "Today, the AMP tenants are in possession of the 12,000 acres of land out of a total of 17,000 acres of the Okara military farm. They dare not come to us to collect the cash rent."

Justifying their rejection of the new cash rent system, he says, "In Kulyana Estate alone, the farm authorities introduced the (cash rent) system at a very minimal rate of Rs 300 per acre per annum. The rate has reached up to 30,000 per acre per annum now and, resultantly, 50 per cent of the original tenants have been deprived of these lands because they could not pay the rent on time."

The situation is no different in the other military farms in the region. "The tenants are in possession of 7,000 out of a total of 10,000 acres of land in the Probenabad and Bayal Ganj military farms while 2,200 out of 3,200 acres in Renala Khurd military farms is in their possession as well."

"Until 2002, we were ready to give a share of our crops to the farm management but when they started killing our friends we refused to pay them a penny," says ShabbirAhmed Sajjad, President, AMP, Probenabad and Bayal Ganj military farms.

According to Sajjad, the military farm administration is not in legal possession of the land "yet they are allotting the land to retired military officials on the pretext of stud farming".

The ancestors of a majority of the tenants came to these farms in the first decade of the 20th century, when the British founded agricultural research, livestock and dairy farms across approximately 68,000 acres of land in different districts of what now constitutes Pakistan's Punjab. At that time, the greater part of the area was dry forest and could not be used for commercial agriculture. The British government initiated a canal irrigation project and lured both Christian and Muslim families to till the farms. The new settlers were promised permanent ownership of the land once they succeeded in making it fertile. In 1913, when the land was brought to life by the farmers, the then Punjab government leased it out to different departments, including the Royal Army, through Colonisation of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, for 20 years.

As per the official records of the Okara Revenue Department, "This land was transferred by the government of Punjab to the Central Government (Ministry of Defence) on lease vide Memo No. 1844-S dated 9-8-1913 (not available in the office) for a period of 20 years at the rate of 15000/- per annum for the entire land. The record of payment of rent/lease money is neither available in the office nor provided by the military authorities."

According to a high official of the revenue department of District Okara, the royal army did not bother to extend the lease agreement with the Punjab government and kept the 'possession' with it until partition. "After partition, Pakistan army as a successor to the Royal Army took over the possession of the land. They, too, have never paid rent or lease of the land to the Punjab government. The Ministry of Defence wrote a letter to the Punjab government in December 1999 to get the possession of the land free of cost. The value of the land of military farm in Okara alone, as calculated by Revenue Officer, was Rs 4 billion in 2001. So, Board of Revenue, Punjab, through letter D.O. No. 14-2001/631-CL-V dated April 13, 2001, refused to do so on legal grounds."

An official in the District Coordination Office informed TNS that a high level meeting of Rangers, DCO, MNAs and MPAs on the issue of confrontation between the tenants and the military farm administration had also taken place. Sohail Shahzad, DCO Okara, initially not accessible, was available on the phone the next day. He confirmed that the government meant to resolve the issue, "We have forwarded a report to the provincial government explaining the ground realities on the issue. All stakeholders including the political people have been taken on board because we want to reach an agreement. We do not want to impose a decision that can lead to any untoward situation.

"I can assure you that a serious development is underway and should be in place in the next two to four months."

Farooq Tariq, spokesperson for Labour Party Pakistan, the only political party supporting tenants since 2000, insists that the Punjab government has not contacted the leadership of the tenants on the issue. "They should be taken into confidence if the government is serious about solving the issue. To me, the solution is very simple: give the land ownership right to the tenants."

Mehar Abdul Sattar, the 37 years old general secretary of Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP), is a graduate in Plant Pathology from Agriculture University, Faisalabad, and a resident of Chak 4/4L Okara military farm. He was a student when the military farm administration introduced a system of cultivation for tenants in 2000. Being the son of a tenant, Mehar naturally joined the resistance movement, eventually becoming the GS of AMP.

Mehar has had to pay dearly for his commitment to the cause of the tenants. He has been nominated in at least 25 different cases, ranging from wood theft to murder. In 2008, he contested the election to the Provincial Assembly from District Okara. He lost by a small margin, though. Excerpts from an interview with TNS follow.

The News on Sunday: Would you like to share a brief history of AMP with us?

Mehar Abdul Sattar: AMP is a movement of approximately one million tenants of different military farms. It was a corollary of the atrocities committed by the military farm administrations against the tenants of the land. Until 2000, the tenants were completely unaware of their rights. They were serving the military like slaves. But the military high officials had their own plans: they wanted to allot this fertile land to retired military officials in the name of stud farming. The tenants were their only hurdle. So they decided to get rid of them.

In the first phase, they planned to change the status of 'tenants' to 'contractors' of land because legally it would be easier for them to evict a contractor from the land. They allured the tenants with minimal cash rent but the latter refused to accept the new system. It was a shock for the military high-ups who then decided to use force. Tenants resisted and this resistance took the shape of a movement named AMP.

TNS: The military farm administration says it had a very cordial relationship with the tenants and blames AMP for provoking confrontation. What do you say?

MAS: This is nonsense. AMP is being blamed because it is not letting the military farm administration to achieve its targets. In June 2000, the military farm administration announced implementing the new system of contracts in these farms while AMP was formed at least one month after the decision. It was purely a movement of tenants. They decided to organise as a group under the banner of AMP. It's a peaceful movement and seeks to safeguard the rights of the tenants. In fact, it was the first real movement against the dictatorial decisions of the Pervez Musharraf regime.

In the first year or so, we requested the farm management to reverse the decision as we were ready to go back to the crop sharing system of cultivation but they used force against us. We had no option but to resist. We started using all available platforms to expose the oppression of farms administration. In these nine years, at least 11 tenants have been killed in different incidents by the law-enforcing agencies and the gangsters of the area while hundreds others have been injured. They want to kill our movement by making such allegations. But they will have to face humiliation on this front as well.

TNS: On the one hand, AMP criticises the military farm administration for illegal possession of the land, on the other it has been preaching the same to the tenants. How do you justify that?

MAS: To set the record straight, the tenants are not the illegal holders of this land; they have been tilling the land for ages under the Tenancy Act 1887. While there is no record available with the revenue department that the Royal Army got the lease of the land extended beyond 1934, but they kept on holding the land until 1947. After partition, Pakistan Army did the same and took possession of land through its Veterinary and Farm Crop (RVFC) department in the name of stud farming. In 2000, the Ministry of Defence wrote to the Punjab government for acquiring the permanent possession of the land, but the Board of Revenue refused to comply on legal grounds. Therefore, the military is not even a party on this land. In fact, Punjab government and tenants are two parties to decide the issue.

TNS: Don't you think 'Malki Ya Maut' (ownership or death) is a very extreme stance?

MAS: AMP has not coined this slogan. The tenants adopted it after the security forces started committing atrocities against them. In 2001, a tenant was killed in Renala Khurd military farm while in 2002 three others were killed in different incidents. False cases of murder of two tenants were registered against me and other leaders of AMP in 2002-03. For outsiders it can be a crude slogan but for us who have faced the wrath of the security agencies there is no other option.

Our stance means that we are willing to pay any price for our rights. We will die of hunger if thrown out of this land. It would be the end of the world for us. We have no other source of income and nowhere to go.

TNS: So what's the solution?

MAS: Very simple: give land ownership rights to the tenants.

-- Aoun Sahi

The News on Sunday: Why did the Human Rights Watch decide to do a report on the military farms in Okara?

Ali Hasan Dayan: Until the Lawyer's Movement in 2007, the Okara military farms dispute provided the most compelling example of local resistance to the military's monopoly on privilege, power and land in its heartland -- the Punjab.

TNS: In what ways is the Okara military farms dispute unusual?

AHD: The emergence and persistence of such a movement remains particularly unusual in the Punjabi context. In many ways, it was a precursor for the popular resistance to the military seen since 2007 in central Punjab in the form of the Lawyer's Movement.

The location of the dispute is rather problematic for the Pakistan Army. The Punjab is the power-base of the military. It has traditionally drawn the overwhelming majority of its rank and file from the province and particularly from the districts that are now offering resistance. Historically, the army has viewed the area as its backyard and the local people as subservient allies -- given the latter's role as labourers in a military-dominated economy. Hence, many in the military are outraged that peasant farmers would dare to revolt against any tenancy system that it saw fit to impose upon them.

The army likely fears the potential knock-on effects of a compromise in Okara for its land operations nationwide and the damage that any compromise might do to its status as Pakistan's most powerful and feared institution. The army's evident fear is that such a revolt, if allowed to fester or be accommodated, may lead to a reworking of the patron-client relationships carefully nurtured by the military establishment between itself and the traditional landed elites, between itself and the tenant farmers and between the traditional landed elites and the peasant farmers.

This is a dispute that both sides believe they cannot afford to lose. For the Pakistani military establishment, control of land is essential for maintaining its position within the Pakistani political structure it believes that it cannot allow tenant farmers to challenge this position. For tenant farmers, access to land is often the difference between economic survival and abject poverty, between a full belly and hunger, between a viable future and complete marginalisation.

TNS: What is the legal status of the farms?

AHD: The land is owned by the Punjab government.

TNS: Do the tenants have the right of land ownership?

AHD: Land ownership is a secondary issue. Unilateral reworking of tenancy agreements by a landlord (the army) whose own title to the land is disputed is the real issue.

TNS: What has been the impact of the HRW report?

AHD: The HRW report along with mobilisation by local actors gave the issue massive international and national exposure and prevented the army from engaging in large-scale brutality and sieges -- activities they had engaged in prior to the publication of the report. It has helped maintain the status quo which suits the farmers rather than allow the army to ride rough-shod over the farmers.

TNS: What is the way out of the situation?

AHD: The real title-holder to the land, the Punjab provincial government, should be returned control of the land and should seek a negotiated solution with the tenant farmers.

* At the time of partition in 1947, ownership rights were not granted to the tenant farmers, while refugees who had crossed over from India were given ownership rights. In 1952, government initiatives to allot land excluded the tenant farmers as well. Similarly, the land reform acts of 1958 and 1972 also excluded these farms. Till this day, the tenant farmers are struggling for permanent rights to the land they have tilled for almost a century now.

* For the past seven years the tenant farmers in Khanewal, along with one million mazarain in 10 other district of Punjab, have been struggling against the large military owned companies (Military Farms, Army Welfare Trust and Punjab Seed Corporation) over the control of 70,000 acres of highly cultivable land in Punjab. These farms were founded in the early part of 20th century.

Fighting poverty for over a century, the tenant farmers of Okara submitted an application with the Punjab Board of Revenue on March 24, 1999, to obtain the proprietary rights on the aforementioned farms.

* In 2000, the military unilaterally tried to change the rules, demanding that the farmers sign new rental contracts requiring them to pay rent in cash.

* The tenants organised themselves as Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP) to fight for ownership rights over the lands.

The Rangers were ordered to the districts in "aid of civil authority". The latter included a police force of eight to ten thousand that had been deployed to the area in May 2002.

* The Rangers besieged eighteen villages in Okara district twice from August 24, 2002, for approximately three months, and from May 7, 2003, to August 5, 2003. The first siege took place following the Rangers' alleged killing of farmer Salman Masih, the second following the killing of farmer Mohammad Amir.

* The dispute reached its peak between May 5, 2003, and June 12, 2003, when Okara Military Farms and the 150,000 people who lived in eighteen villages were besieged for over a month by police and Pakistan Rangers. The siege, which involved the imposition of a curfew, severe restrictions on movement within and into the district, and the disconnection of water, electricity and telephone lines, ended only when farmers were forced to sign contracts.

* On May 10, 2003, Sarwar Mujahid, one of the few independent journalists reporting from Okara, was arrested on charges of "inciting the public against Rangers" and "terrorism".

* On April 17, 2008, over 5000 tenants and peasants participated in a peasant conference held at Okara Military Farms on the international day of peasants. They reminded the government to act as promised.

* On January 19, 2009, over 2000 tenants gathered at Renala Khurd in a public meeting by AMP also demanded the land rights. The police occupied the platform in the morning and asked the organisers to cancel this public meeting. They refused and later when the peasants started to arrive in the tractor trolleys, the police fled from the place and the meeting went ahead.

status

Almost 9 years ago, soon after General Pervez Musharraf had taken power, a seemingly innocuous attempt by the authorities of the so-called Okara military farms to change the tenure status of thousands of tenants who had tilled these state-owned lands for decades triggered the emergence of the movement which I believe was the beginning of the end for the military regime. Few would have guessed that the plains of central Punjab -- the traditional heartland of the military's power -- would be the site of a highly symbolic struggle against the deeply entrenched corporate power of the men in khaki.

At its peak the movement engulfed approximately a million people in at least 6 districts of Punjab. But the heartbeat remained the Okara military farm where the confrontation between the principal antagonists in the conflict was at its most ferocious. It was here that the military's perennial invocation of the 'greater national interest' was most overtly challenged. In short, the Okara tenants exposed the military as a patently illegal land-grabber; the disputed land is owned by the government of Punjab, and the military has no legal claim to it. As usual, this was supposed not to matter, but the Okara tenants made sure that it did.

This peasant movement was distinctive in numerous ways; first, it was not just those who directly controlled land that were at the forefront of the struggle. All residents of the affected villages, including those who stood to benefit very little materially from a tenants' success, joined in. Of the 7 people who were killed at the height of tensions in 2002-3, at least 3 were non-tenants. This reflected a sense of community that was arguably better developed in comparison to the prototypical Punjabi village in which authority relations within the peasantry are much more hierarchical.

Then there was the much-discussed role of women. It must be noted that in the initial instance there was great resistance from within the community to a public role for women in the movement. But once state repression reached new heights, it was simply pragmatic for the Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP) -- the representative organisation of the tenants -- to organise women in the affected villages because the authorities had no hesitation in using unbridled force against men. This reluctant acceptance of the need for women's involvement necessarily became a more principled commitment to undoing some -- if not all -- of the patriarchal norms within the community. Progress was, and is, slow, and when things returned to some semblance of normalcy post-2004, women's role was once again reduced. But there can be no doubt that gender relations in Okara and elsewhere changed in the course of this movement.

While the ability of the AMP to resist eviction was primarily a function of the organisation and togetherness of the community and repeated heroics in the face of virtual sieges of the affected villages, there was also a significant external dimension in the form of a sustained public campaign in major urban centres. The media -- both national and international -- was mobilised and the military itself acknowledged that it lost the 'media war'. High-profile global organisations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) further raised the heat on the military, eventually forcing it to pull back from its coercive posture and tacitly accept the tenants' de facto control over the land (see Ali Hasan Dayan's interview).

As with other movements, this one too suffered its fair share of setbacks. The typically shallow interventions of some donor organisations caused rifts within the AMP leadership, the most obvious of which appeared to acquire a religious dimension, Christians versus Muslims. That Christians in Punjab continue to be treated virtually as untouchables is known to most serious scholars of society, and while tensions to this effect existed within the tenant movement from the beginning, the space for Christians to gain social and political space nonetheless increased, in a way similar to women. That this space was eroded by leadership conflicts was unfortunate, but in my reading much more was made of the 'religious split' than the situation in reality.

Political activists from the outside that were closely affiliated with the movement were not able to extend the politicisation that had taken place in Okara and on other state farms further. This had as much to do with the objective political environment as any subjective factor. If nothing else, as I have already mentioned, the tenant movement did spark broader debates about the military's political and economic role that eventually culminated in the lawyer-led street movement against the Musharraf regime.

It is to these wider debates that I return in conclusion. It is important to remember that the tenants' struggle was a political one rather than a narrowly legalistic one. By this I mean that the AMP invoked the fact that the military had no legal basis to the disputed land not as a means of establishing the tenants' legal rights per se, but to highlight the moral and political injustice in the historical conduct of the 'guardian of the nation' towards the people that it is supposed to protect. Beyond a certain point the AMP refused to appeal to the law as a well-thought out strategy under the pretext that the legal and policing institutions of the state remain virtually colonial (and therefore inherently anti-people). The struggle then was both against the immediate oppression faced by the tenants and the structure of power more generally, which includes the law itself.

It is worth recalling here that the crux of the (Congress's) independence struggle against the British was defiance of the law. Civil disobedience was a means of challenging the moral and political right of the British to provide formal legal cover to the indefensible crime of colonialism. Knowingly or unknowingly the AMP revived just such a politics while fending off a threat to the existence of the peasant communities that it represented. In many ways the significance of the struggle on the Okara military farm remains understated precisely because it is all too often represented exclusively in legalistic terms.

Finally the importance of such a movement emerging in the Punjabi heartland should also not be underemphasized. In recent times much has been made of the deep fragmentation in Pakistan along ethnic lines, and the fact of a deep divide between the central Punjab and the rest of the country. It would be foolish to deny this fact, but it would also be unreasonable in light of the AMP's struggle to suggest that the working poor of Punjab remain uncritically committed to the national security paradigm of the Punjabi-dominated establishment. It is an historical fact that a large part of the Punjabi smallholding peasantry was coopted by the (post) colonial state into an all-encompassing structure of power in which the rest of what is Pakistan was condemned to peripheral status. But it is also true that this cooption has never been complete and with time, I believe, is increasingly giving way to discontent. It is in the alliance of working people in Punjab and oppressed nationalities that the lie the greatest prospect of change in Pakistan. And if such an alliance were to take shape the AMP will have played at least some part in making it possible.

It seems that the two main political parties of Punjab -- Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz -- have taken due note of the worsening situation at Okara military farms and hope to reach a settlement through negotiations.

Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Sohna, provincial minister for Labour and a PPP MPA from Okara, tells TNS that the party is well aware of the tenants' movement and has offered help already. "Since the matter is to be dealt with by the federal government we are going to make recommendations to President Asif Ali Zardari after he returns from his foreign tour.

"We hope the President will make the decision in favour of the tenants within a month."

He says the party will announce its support to the tenants in a convention to be held in Okara soon.

"There is a need to form a parliamentary committee of the National Assembly which should look into the matter. We hope the party leadership of District Okara will recommend this to the federal government soon," says Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed, former PPP MNA, and a noted human rights activist.

It is learnt that the Punjab government has started making serious efforts to resolve the issue through negotiations. "The government -- which is party to the issue by virtue of it leasing out the land to the military -- is not only preparing a report on the issue but has also held meetings, especially after the killing of three tenants in an alleged exchange of fire with the army men in Okara on April 6, 2009," Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khosa, senior advisor to Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, tells TNS.

Khosa held a meeting with the members of the Punjab Assembly from District Okara and the Board of Revenue officials recently and sent a brief summary of the issue to the CM recommending to him to take up the issue with the army and the federal government.

"The situation is worsening by the day and clashes between the tenants and the army are a common phenomenon. This has pressurised us to discuss and evolve a strategy to resolve the issue politically."

The crisis has deepened to the extent where the tenants have also opened fire at the Pakistan Army and the Pakistan Rangers, Khosa adds. "Now they are chanting slogans such as 'Malki Ya Maut' (ownership or death). They are gaining strength and sometimes even the Pakistan Rangers cannot fight them."

Akhlaq Ahmed Tarrar, Senior Member Board of Revenue (SMBR), Punjab, who was also present in the above mentioned meeting, told TNS that the meeting discussed all aspects of the issue and decided to move towards negotiated settlements.

He said that the Pakistan Army had many pieces of land in different districts where the tenants were working and wanted their right to ownership. However, he was unable to give out the exact figures.

On the other hand, Punjab Chief Secretary Javed Mahmood tells TNS of "signals I got from the army top brass" to make recommendations to resolve the issue amicably. "That is why I have asked the Board of Revenue to prepare a detailed report on it."

Although the military has had long-term leases to the land in the past and exerted effective control on it, in some cases for decades, a formal title to the land continues to rest with the government of Punjab. Repeated attempts by the military to effect a permanent transfer of the land to the federal ministry of defense have been rebuffed by the Punjab provincial body that holds title to the land.

The News on Sunday: What is the background of the remount and military farms of the Pakistan Army?

ISPR Spokesperson: Remount farms can be divided into two -- those that deal with animal breeding for military operation and those that provide troops with dairy products and fodder for the mules and horses etc.

The remount and military farms were established in the British government in 1780 mainly to facilitate the import of horses and pack animals from Europe, Australia, Middle East and South Africa to meet the operational requirements of the army. In 1895, on the face of increasing requirements, it was decided that instead of import, the British government should have its own breeding areas and remount depots. Later, under Colonisation of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, a total of 4,512 squares of lands on both sides of lower Bari Doab Canal were placed at the disposal of defence ministry by the Punjab government. After partition, a similar arrangement continues to cater to horse and mule of the combat formations deployed on the line of control in Kashmir.

The establishment of military farms was necessitated in 1880 by the repeated breakout of milk-borne diseases. In 1913, the land comprising 22,700 acres was reserved for defence ministry in Okara for the production of fodder. After 15 years in 1927, six military dairy farms were established to provide disease-free milk to troops. Of the total 22,700 acres, 2200 acres were reserved by the military for self-cultivation while remaining was given to lessees on crop-sharing and yearly lease basis. Of the present day 23 military dairy farms and 2 milk powder factories, 22 dairy farms were established in the British time. In Okara there are six military dairy farms. In crop-sharing (Batai), the lessee shares the produce with the military as a rent while the military bears the cost of the inputs and abayana etc and gives them the cropping programme. The tree on the land remains the property of the military farms.

As regards remount lands, 4512 squares of the total 3578 (74%) are with the civilian breeders known as Gori Pall and 934 squares (26%) named stud farms are with the retired army personnel. The stud lands are allotted for initial 10 years and granted again only if the allottee has provided the army with a specified number of animals. Otherwise it is cancelled and allotted to another retired soldier.

Single square or Gori Pall, on the other hand, is allotted by the district collector revenue to a civilian for 6 years and renewed for another 5 years on the recommendation of the remount officer, an army representative. The land remains with the family even after the death of the allottee, on the same terms and conditions.

TNS: What is the issue between the tenants and the military farms authorities?

ISPR: There are two different issues: one relates to the military farms and the other to the stud lands. The issue of military farm land erupted in 2000 when the produce was declining and the demand of the military was increasing while on the part of lessee there was rampant pilferage, resistance to use modern machinery and not following military cropping progamme. So it was decided to give more incentives to the lessee and crop-sharing was changed into rent-in-cash system. Under the new system, the lease period was extended to 7 years on a yearly rent of Rs 3000-4000 per acre which was almost 50% of the prevailing market rate. The lease rent was also to be paid in three easy cash instalments. Unlike crop-sharing in which the lessee was allowed to keep only one cow or buffalo and two young stock animals, the new contract allowed him to keep as many animals as he liked.

Initially, the new contract system was welcomed by the people but on the instigation of certain land grabbers who alleged that the military wanted to evict them, the people were forced at gunpoint not to adopt the new system and pay the lease amount or provide fodder to the army. Anybody defying them was beaten up, socially boycotted and forced to leave the land. Over 600 cases of illegal subletting the land, tree cutting, selling the land, and damage to the property have been reported to the police but whenever action is taken against the miscreants, they block the national highway.

The stud land issue is a recent phenomenon. During the 2008 elections, some political contestants promised Anjuman Mazarain Punjab (AMP) that they would help them fulfil their demands. Taking the queue, the AMP incited the locals to create trouble in the stud lands and forcibly take over land. Apart from fresh stud, the allottees who have been granted land in Renala/Coloyana in the past are also being denied their possessions. There is an armed gang of motorcyclists which is harassing them and collecting illegal bhatha (fine). There are a number of violent incidents in which the mob has attacked the stud farm owners, destroyed their property or occupied it and posed threat to their lives.

TNS: In this day and age of scientific advancement, are these farms still important for military operations?

ISPR: Yes, these are. Not only are these farms catering to the dairy needs of the soldiers, keeping them healthy, but also providing them with horses and mules which are the effective means of transportation in difficult mountainous areas like Fata and Kashmir, not only in war times but also for the rehabilitation works of the earthquake victims. If the military had to procure these products from the market it would cost billions of rupees to the national exchequer. And these mules are of a rare breed, specific only to Pakistan and India or to a small percentage in Brazil. There is an annual requirement of 1400 horses/mules for the army and the civilian armed forces and organisations which are being produced by the two breeding lands.

TNS: The legal claim of the military over these farms has been questioned by the AMP. What exactly is its legal status?

ISPR: The military farms and the remount lands were put under defence use by a British government resolution no. D-3248, dated December 10, 1925, and the Colonisation of Government Lands Act V (Punjab) of 1912 respectively which was later adopted by the government of Pakistan in 1947 under the existing law which states: "The government of Pakistan has the right to remain in undisturbed possession of any land in its occupation in any province on 1st April 1921, subject to the conditions and rulings, so long as such occupation is necessary for the effective discharge of its duties." It also says that a "local government has no power without the consent of the government of Pakistan to alienate or in any way to interfere in regard to the land situated within the provincial boundaries which is in the occupation of the central government."

In 2000, when the lessees approached the lower courts, their cases were dismissed. Then a writ was filed in the High Court which, in 2001, rejected their plea saying "the petitioners are the lessees of the land and the period of their lease has since run over. They are in possession of the property without any lawful basis. If they want to stay on land, they have to adhere to the revised policy of the Defence Ministry and pay rent in cash." The lessees' intra-court appeal has also been dismissed and now the case is pending in the Supreme Court.

TNS: How do you respond to the recent incidents of violence and to the allegations levelled by the tenants that the military is supporting the culprits?

ISPR: The facts have all been mutilated. The truth is that on September 28, 2008, land grabbers killed a 15 years old boy named Sarfraz alias Bhola and lodged a fake FIR against the stud grantees. The mother of the boy sought our protection and told a session judge that those who brought the boy's dead body were the real killers. Now an FIR has been registered against the miscreants.

As regards the killings of three persons on April 6, 2009, the so-called Anjuman Mazarain Coloyana, District Okara, tried to occupy 25 acres land in Chak 28/2-R which was surrendered by Brig (retd) Muhammad Asfar Khan to the revenue department and was with it on 'superdari'. About 50 persons including the women chanting slogans of 'Malki ya Maut!' entered into the area and beat the superdars named Sajjad Haider and Riaz. The persons in the stud farm started shooting in the air in self defence. Some miscreants took positions behind the crowd and opened fire, killing three persons -- Abbas, Rahim and Ameer Ali -- and injuring 15 others. The incident involved two civilian groups; the Army had nothing to do with it because the land was on 'superdari' with revenue department and the land grabbers forcibly wanting to occupy the land before it could be allotted to any other retired army officer by the GHQ.

To date, over 100 squares of land of stud grantees is in the illegal possession of land grabbers who have victimised over 90 stud grantees.

TNS: Tell us if this land is for military's institutional use or for private use of individual army officers? Secondly, how much land has been given to retired military officials to make stud farms?

ISPR: This land is not for army officers' private use; it is for institutional use. The military land is not awarded even to retired military officers. However, of the 4512 squares of remount land, 3578 squares are with civilian breeders and 934 squares of stud land with 619 retired army personnel.

TNS: What is the solution? What is the way ahead to end this situation which is costing human lives?

ISPR: If the lessees have doubts that under the new system they would be evicted and if they want a reversal to the crop-sharing system then we have no problem. The solution lies in implementing the government laws and rules and the decision of the courts.