Land Tenure Practices of the British in Iraq 1920 - 1932

This is a paper written last summer while learning about Iraq and why the US is involved in a war there. It is really eye-opening that the the problems in Iraq were created by the Brits, who copied a lot of what they did in India.

It may be a bit long, compared to the usual blog, but got to tell the story right.
Animesh

---

Land Tenure Practices of the British in Iraq 1920 - 1932

Introduction

Democracy, as we usually understand it, is the system that provides every member of the state an equal opportunity to achieve success in life. This is enabled through a set of institutions such as a representative legislature, a responsive and independent judiciary with the ability to enforce its laws, a state led by an effective executive that implements the policies of the legislature and maintains peace inside the state and with its neighbors, a health system that ensures each citizen is healthy and productive, an education system that gives everyone the chance to make use of their intellectual faculties to get ahead, and the freedom to pursue their spiritual beliefs or religion. This is the ideal, and even bastions of democracy like the USA have not achieved it. These were the goals of the League of Nations mandate for Iraq to Great Britain, and the mandate was terminated in 1932 by a declaration that the new Iraqi state would adhere to these principles[1] and had already achieved a great deal towards realizing them. Unfortunately this was not really the case, and we will look at just one aspect of the state, the distribution and ownership of land, and see that instead of the democratic ideal, a series of laws and administrative steps starting from the Ottoman times had done exactly the opposite. Land ownership was concentrated in the hands of a few elites, leaving the rest of the populace impoverished and struggling to make ends meet. In the absence of any social measures to reduce exploitation and provide services like health and education, the British had created an oppressive feudal state rather than a modern democracy by the time the mandate ended in 1932.

In a primarily agricultural nation (this was before oil became important in Iraq) the important measures of success for a state are measured by its land tenure policies:

- how is land ‘owned’ and ‘worked’, and how is that ownership managed over time

- how is the agricultural and other output from the land distributed between the owner, producer, local institutions, and the state

- who is responsible for changes in land use, improvements in irrigation, soil conservation, ecology, environment and conflict management between agriculture, forestry, mineral rights, nature preservation and urban growth

- how the relationships between the various stakeholders, current and future are managed

In Iraq, we will look at the period starting in 1858, when the Tanzimat reforms were attempted and ending in 1932 when the Land Settlement Act was promulgated, to sketch the pattern of responses to these questions and their consequences. We see that there is a close correlation between the approach adopted by the state towards land tenure and the subsequent non-development of democratic institutions. In addition we will examine the land tenure practices that the British adopted in India, and their previous track record in changing the land tenure practices in a large country.

Land Ownership Until Mid-Nineteenth Century

Traditionally tribes in the geographical area now known as Iraq, and in the adjoining lands, were nomadic in nature. They did not hold fixed areas of land for long periods of time, but rather occupied land that they could defend and then cultivated it. If the rivers changed course, the land was over worked, or they were forced out by other tribes, they moved on to other land. Rather than private ownership of land by individuals, it was used in common by the entire tribe, with shares of the produce given to the shaykhs and other office-holders[2]. The share paid to the shaykh included payments for the “guest-house” (the place where tribal functions were held and outside visitors entertained) and the “coffee-maker” (qawaji, the man who made coffee). If the tribe had to pay tax to the Ottomans, this was the shaykh’s responsibility.

The position of the shaykh was primarily that of a military leader, a patriarch who gained his position increasingly by inheritance, but not necessarily primogeniture. The leader was chosen based on proven skills, not just because he was the eldest. While the position carried prestige and power, it did not provide private property or inordinate wealth. Hence they did not form a “class” in the modern sense as the private property they had was substantially more than that of the tribesman, nor the lifestyle very different. The shaykh class was created after 1858 and cemented into existence by the British, especially the Land Settlement Act of 1932[3].

Until the mid-nineteenth century, the tribal people were mostly engaged in subsistence agriculture or animal husbandry, growing or rearing only what was needed for their own needs and some minimal trading. Urban centers were small and life, while hard, was uncomplicated.

Ottoman Reforms

After the mid-nineteenth century there were several changes in this region as the Ottoman Empire started to modernize. They took greater administrative control of the area, organized it into vilayets (provinces), brought the telegraph and steam navigation on the river. More than anything else it opened what was a subsistence agricultural existence into market-based commercial agriculture.

In 1858, the progressive Governor, Midha Pasha attempted to change the land tenure from the collective tribal ownership of lands that were subject to shifting nomadic cultivation to individual tapu ownership. This was part of the overall reforms in the Ottoman Empire at that time, bringing Western ideas of individualism to a collectivist society. Before this, the land was ‘owned’ by the tribe, the extent of their ownership being what they could protect from other tribes. It wasn’t owned in the way we think in terms of private property, as the tribe was interested only in the use of the land, moving into another area when it needed to be left fallow. The reforms accelerated the sedentarization of tribes as plots of land were allocated to those shaykhs and urbanites who understood the implication of the new system and power of paper over possession. While the reforms were stopped part way through, and most land remained state property, it did create a small landowning class that had control of thousands of acres of agricultural land.

During the period 1871 to 1912, agricultural production increased 60-fold, possibly as a result of the shift to commercial farming based on tapu rights. Ownership of land leads to a long view that can contemplate improvements such as irrigation, development of markets as regular deliveries of agricultural produce are assured, and the utilization of credit, which is obtained by mortgaging the land, to increase cropped acreage. Thus the reforms while flawed in terms of identifying the appropriate owners, and helping to eliminate the tribal way of life, made it possible for these provinces to enter into the agricultural market. It also provided revenue for the state and the growth of the elite. Ironically, most of the grain produced was sold in India, enhancing British interest in the region.

The change of ownership of the land from communal to private property in the hands of the shaykhs, as well as the introduction of commercial agriculture contributed to the deconstruction of tribal society, as it led to the growth of urban areas and wealth. Firstly, the military prestige and command of the shaykh was lost as the members of the tribe were converted to peasants and good farmers and foremen were more valuable than warriors. Secondly, a dissatisfied tribal, now a peasant, could move to another estate or the urban centers, thus loosening the bonds of the tribe. Thirdly, the shaykh, by becoming a member of a propertied class, lost his former relationship with the other members of the tribe[4].

Thus by time of the fall of the Ottomans during World War I, the region had evolved from a tribal society into a mixture of urban and rural populations, great disparity in wealth and property ownership and increasing urbanization.

British & Monarchic Period 1920 - 1932

After stabilizing its hold on the provinces of Baghdad and Basra (Mosul was added later) in 1920, the British were mandated by the League of Nations to create a modern state of Iraq. Borrowing heavily from their experience in India and working from a romanticized view of the tribal system and the shaykh, they attempted to reverse the disintegration of the tribal system. There was also a pragmatic reason: after an intense debate between the British administrators Dowson, Dobbs and Longrigg on whether the government should give land tenure to the peasant or the shaykh, the latter was chosen on grounds of expediency[5]. Given the mood of the British people against a long and expensive nation-building exercise, they chose to use a small number of intermediaries to control a large number of people[6].

The British not only upheld the tapu distribution of 1858 (in spite of the large numbers of disputes as the Ottomans had taken many of the records with them), but introduced lazmah as a new class in the 1932 Land Settlement law. Thus they effectively reinforced the ownership of most of the land by just a few persons. The rest of the rural population was to eke out a miserable existence[7].

Resultant Pattern of Land Tenure

In the century from 1858 (when private ownership of land was introduced) to 1958 (when a revolution abolished the monarchy), Iraq had changed completely from a communal, nomadic, subsistence-based, mainly rural society into a highly stratified, modern, market-oriented state with an enormous concentration of land ownership.

Batatu provides some statistics that show the land ownership position in 1958. Firstly, the majority of the land had been distributed under the tapu and lazmah laws. Third came miri land that was theoretically leasehold, but actually never changed hands. While all land theoretically belonged to the state, it had actually been given away free of charge to private owners[8].

Ownership Type	Area Covered (Million dunum*)	Percentage
Tapu (1858)	12.48	38.8%
Lazmah (1932)	10.59	32.9%
Mulk (Urban)	0.26	0.8%
Waqf (Charitable)	0.44	1.4%
Miri (Leasehold)	4.68	14.6%
Unsettled Title	3.7	11.5%
Total	32.15	100.0%

*1 dunum = 0.168 acre

Who were these private owners? In terms of total numbers, they were quite substantial, over a quarter million in number. However, summarizing the data[9], we see that a few owners hold almost 1000 times more land on an average than the majority:

Estate Size (dunum)	Number of Holders	Percentage of land owned	Index of Ownership
<500	246000	30%	1
> 500 & <>	6876	40%	48
> 10000	252	30%	976

The index of ownership is assumed as 1 for the average size of the holdings under 500 dunum. The next group of owners, almost 7000 in number, own almost 50 times the land of the smallest landowners. The largest landowners, just 252 of them, each own almost 1000 times that owned by the smallest. This was surely a basis for gross inequalities.

The role of the shaykh in the ownership of land is borne out by further statistics. Of the 49 estates larger than 50,000 dunum, 22 are owned by tribal shaykhs, 12 by Sadah (descendants of the Prophet), and 11 by merchants[10]. Thus the British policy of favoring the shaykhs ensured that they became large land owners.

This concentration of wealth was aggravated by the rent, tax and other burdens on the peasantry. From the produce of the land it was customary to divide almost a quarter amongst the village guards, the coffee-man (qawaji), the guest-house, the man of god, the crop measurer and the supervisor of civil works. From what was left, the peasant received between an eight (during the British time) to one-half (if he provided the seeds and it was a difficult land to till), i.e. 10-38% of the produce. With poor tax collection methods in most areas, the land owner was the beneficiary as the amount meant for the state remained with him. Moreover, the reduced state revenue meant that social services like health and education, as well as improvements in irrigation and transportation could not be funded, affecting the poor rather than the rich.

The Indian Experience

Great Britain, through the East India Company, started colonization of India from near the end of the eighteenth century, although they were engaged in trade for almost a century before that. At this time, India was ruled by the Mughals for the most part, but there were also many local kings, mainly Hindu. Unlike the Mughals, who had left land ownership relatively untouched[11] when they conquered, the British applied their principles of private property and ownership. Motivated partially by their ideology as developed by Locke, and also by the need to assign tax collection responsibility to individuals who could meet the targets, they changed land ownership patterns through their Permanent Settlement[12]. This was the recording of the ownership of the land and the setting up of the annual tax demand for each estate, payable in cash. While the initial set of zamindars, as the tax farmers were termed, were those who were incumbent at the time of the Mughals and local rulers, through auctions these were transferred to those who could more effectively collect the tax demand[13]. This disrupted the societal relationships in the rural areas, bringing in commercial interests that were more interested in turning a quick profit through the difference between the tax collected and that paid, rather than the long term interests of the agrarian society. Coupled with the British destruction of local manufacturing industries in cloth, dyeing, iron works etc, so that the products of the Industrial revolution could be sold in these new markets, this led to widespread surplus of labor as well as poverty. In addition, maintenance of civil works such as irrigation channels which was formerly performed from village funds, was neglected.

The result in India was the creation of a vast commercial agriculture enterprise that provided the Empire with food and cash, but impoverished the people and destroyed the infrastructure and economic relations built over centuries.

Conclusion

Britain, almost against its will, was given a mandate by the League of Nations to create a modern state in Iraq. Against its will in several ways:

- Britain wanted to divide up the lands of the Ottoman Empire after World War I between itself and France, creating colonies like the one they had in India

- Woodrow Wilson’s 14-point agenda, the establishment of the League of Nations and growth of Arab nationalism (ironically catalyzed by the British against the Ottomans) created the Mandate which meant that they were to create the state of Iraq at great expense and get out

- The British population was weary of war and foreign adventures and wanted to have nothing to do with the expensive project of creating a modern state

They however decided to take on the challenge, but chose expediency over thoroughness, and their established ideas of state control over democracy, and created a state that had a monarch imposed from outside, a set of landed shaykhs with wealth and power to countervail against the King, a government apparatus that was constrained in terms of scope, budget and power, and a set of warring ethnicities that were intentionally divided to help rule them better. In addition, they made a land tenure system that was riddled with inequity even more unequal, creating a very small class of very rich landowners, and marginalizing the common people even more than when they came to Iraq in the first place.

In the area of land tenure the British followed the practice they had in India of choosing the system that made it easier for the state and maximized tax revenues, but at the cost of building democracy. By 1958, this led to revolution and the next phase of the development of the state of Iraq.

Bibliography

1. Baden-Powell, B.H., Land Revenue and Tenure in British India, Clarendon Press, 1907
2. Batatu, Hanna, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0 691 05241 7, 1978.
3. Dodge, Toby, Inventing Iraq, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0 231 13166 6, 2003.
4. Dowson, Ernest and Sheppard, V.L.O., Land Registration, H.M Stationery Office, 1956
5. Farouk-Sluglett, Marion & Sluglett, Peter, Iraq Since 1958, I. B. Tauris, ISBN 1 86064 622 0, 1987.
6. Frykenberg, Robert Eric, Editor, Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History, The University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 0 299 05240 0, 1969
7. Habib, Irfan, The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556-1707, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0 19 562329 0, 1999.
8. Meouchy, Nadine and Sluglett, Peter, Editors, The British and French Mandates in Comparative Perspectives, Brill, ISBN 90 04 13313 5, 2004
9. Owen, Roger, Editor, New Perspectives on Property and Land in the Middle East, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0 932885 26 8, 2000
10. Robb, Peter, Editor, Rural India Land, Power and Society under British Rule, Curzon Press, ISBN 0 7007 0161 3, 1983
11. Solami, Declaration Of The Kingdom Of Iraq, May 30, 1932<>

---

[1] Solami

[2] Batatu, pp 71-72

[3] Batatu, pg 64

[4] Batatu, pg 99

[5] Dodge, pg 112

[6] Batatu, pg 88

[7] Batatu, pg 141

[8] Batatu, pg 53

[9] Batatu, pg 54

[10] Batatu, pg 57

[11] Frykenberg, pg 45

[12] Baden-Powell, pg 154

[13] Habib, pg 196