Lessons from the political and agricultural history of Punjab: The Unionist Party 1923-1947.

"One who forget history cannot make history"-Babasaheb Ambedkar.

Thread
1.

The Unionist Party came into power in 1923. It was called the rural party of Punjab and it formed the interests of the rural masses. It claimed that it was a party of peasants fighting against the Urban Banias and Khatris.

However, there is problem here. Castes were never divided into urban and rural areas. Khatris and Banias as much resided in the urban areas as they did in rural areas. So was the case with Sheikhs, Syeds and Brahmins. It comes that the fight against Banias was rhetorical.

In fact when one looked closely. The party was formed of Jatts, Khatris, Rajputs, Sheikhs, Syeds and even Brahmins who too held land. The party used to say that it was a party of peasants that did not discriminate on the basis of caste. However, all higher castes formed it's part

The first thing this that the party did was accept the land alienation act that was passed by the British Government in 1901. The act did not allow the untouchable castes to own land. However, it allowed the Sheikhs, Syeds and Jatts to own land. They were termed as agriculturists

The second thing that the party did was support the customary laws of land. These laws suggested that land could not be transferred from one caste to another and meant no ownership of land by women.

Note that Babasaheb fought against both the things in the 1950s. Babasaheb got the land alienation act finally repealed. And challenged customary laws through the Hindu Code Bill. Babasaheb fought against the Jatts and other higher castes who wanted to maintain customary laws.

The party argued for reduction in land revenue. However, it never fought against the caste based rent and wage system then prevalent in Punjab.

The point to be noted is this: Upper caste landlords have often taken the role of "simplistic peasants" in the past. Without offering anything to the landless masses. What appeared as a revolutionary fight against the Banias was only rhetorical in nature.

One might learn such lessons from history and ask legitimate questions. The point is not create divisions. The point is to ask questions. One cannot divide a society that is already divided!

End.