Impact of Bolshevik Russian Peasant Programme on Peasants’ Movement in NWFP:
From Ghalla Dher to Shumali (North) Hashtnagar

                              Sarfraz Khan*
Rashid Hussain Mughal**

Introduction

This paper attempts to provide a brief background to peasant movements’ programmes in Russia and in NWFP (currently, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), Pakistan. Briefly describing and comparing Russian peasant programmes of both factions of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party i.e. Menshevik (minority) and Bolshevik (majority), it assesses development of Bolshevik Russian peasant programme in Russia. Following a brief discussion of British land settlement policy in NWFP, India that resulted into creation of a class of landed aristocracy in NWFP, subsequently leading to antagonism between poor peasants, sharecroppers, tenants and the landlords, it introduces local peasant struggles. It charts first peasant programme that appeared in Ghalla Dher in 1938 and also peasants of Shumali Hashtnagar in 1948-78, NWFP. Comparing these peasants’ programmes, it identifies impact of the Bolshevik peasant programme on peasant movements in Ghalla Dher and Shumali Hashtnagar.

Peasant Movements’ Programmes in Russia in the Twentieth Century

In Russia, the peasant reform of 1861 had been the first of its kind promulgated during reign of Alexander II. Many factors contributed in persuading Russian ruling classes to introduce reforms from above to emancipate peasants. These included: lower agricultural production, as well as peasant rebellions in Russia led by Ivan Bolotnikov (1606-07), Stepan Razin (1667-71), and Yemelyan Pugachev (1773-75). The so called ‘Emancipation Manifesto’ proclaimed emancipation of peasants on private estates barring state-owned and domestic (households) serfs. The Emancipation Manifesto abolished serfdom i.e., landowners could no longer buy, sell; grant as gifts, exchange or mortgage serfs. It made peasant legal entity with right to own real estate, to seek employment outside, engage in commerce and industry, conclude contracts with private persons or institutions and cast vote in local election in Russia.
Though, peasants partially acquired personal freedom, however, reforms made peasants less well-off economically than they had been before 1861. For instance, it freed more than twenty millions peasants with lands from the authority of their landlords. Peasants generally received about one-third of the land; landlords retained the best land including most of the wood land, irrigation channels, and pasture. Peasants had to pay redemption money considerably exceeding market price, to own their share of land. They borrowed money to purchase land and incurred heavy debt. Russian landowners used to collect quitrents, labour rents and tribute (tax, as a mark of respect to landowners) from peasants. Moreover, landowners were still authorized to maintain order, pass judgment and administer punishment on their estates. Many peasants still remained poverty-stricken, downtrodden, ignorant subjects to feudal landowners in court, in organs of administration, in schools and in the Zemstvo (local and regional self-governing body).
The plight of the Russian peasants influenced many revolutionaries and progressive Russians to raise voice in support and emancipation of peasants. Russian peasant movement grew and gathered strength rapidly following 1861 reforms. Peasant programme of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), founded in 1898, stepping ahead advocated: confiscation and nationalization of landed estates; return of otrezky (cut-off lands, taken away from peasant allotments by the terms of emancipation of 1861); abolition of collective responsibility for tax payment; suspension of all laws preventing peasants to exercise their will in terms of buying and selling allotments, and establishment of peasant committees in Russia.
By 1903 the RSLDP split into two factions i.e. the RSLDP (Bolsheviks) and the RSLDP (Mensheviks). An abortive attempt was made to reunify two rival factions at the Fourth (Unity) Congress held in Stockholm in 1906. The main contesting points included: peasant programme, attitude towards State Duma, issue of armed struggle and attitude to bourgeois parties’ etc. Peasant programme of the Mensheviks advocated: municipalisation of landed estates i.e. taking away large private estates (leased or purchased) from landlords and handing over, not to individual peasants as their property, but to organs of popularly elected local and regional self-governing bodies (Zemstvos) which could make redemption payment to landlords. However, small peasants’ holdings and allotment land (communal or homestead) will be inalienable property of peasants. Thus self-governing bodies may distribute municipalized land among peasants. The body will determine rates, normalize rents, wages and resolve land disputes keeping in view local conditions. Moreover, the body will pay rent to state at locally established rules. However, Menshevik peasant programme advocated partial land compensation as peasants did not accept any attempt to nationalize all land. 
Whereas, Bolsheviks rejected Menshevik peasant programme on the basis of offering partial compensation for land to landlord. They also opposed compulsory preservation of large, highly cultivated estates on the discretion of local bodies. The Bolsheviks believed that only by taking away land from feudal landlords; they might be able to diminish their power and influence and to permanently end this cruel and tyrannical system. In their view nationalization of land shall bring a sea-change, unleash revolutionary fervor amongst masses and unite them under banner of a single organization. This policy of nationalizing land will act as a catalyst in rooting out remnants of feudalism in its entirety. For Bolsheviks state was to own land instead of individuals or local body. It shall possess right to determine rates of land lease and to set up rules and regulations for custody and cultivation of land. The Bolshevik state was to refer land distribution matters to local or regional institutions for fair distribution amongst peasants according to state rules. Moreover, the Bolshevik state was to provide land on reasonable rent in cash, not to hire labour service, rather to encourage peasants to spend available capital to purchase modern agricultural machinery. Nationalization and free availability of land on rent shall raise productivity through improved techniques and modern machinery.
To Bolsheviks, land nationalization has been a radical anti-feudal measure that converted private land into state property. It meant a complete end to private ownership of land, transformation of enslaved peasants into free, independent peasants and state control over land bringing a complete end to feudalism. This would only be possible under practical struggle of peasants supervised by working class to defeat autocracy by force in countryside. For the Bolsheviks, peasants were not permanent supporters or allies, instead agriculture workers (seasonal or permanently hired worker in the agriculture field) could become permanent allies, since following revolutionary democratic reforms, an inevitable enmity would have arisen between peasants and agriculture workers resulting into a new class struggle. The urban working class could side with the agriculture workers and struggle for socialism rather than land.
RSLDP (Bolsheviks) held its Second Congress in July-August, 1903. It comprised forty three delegates, representing 26 organizations. Each committee was entitled to send two delegates, but some could send only one. The 43 delegates commended 52 votes between them, adopted following peasant programme:

• Abolition of land redemption payments, quit-rents and all unpaid services imposed on the peasantry as a taxable estate
• To annul collective liability and all laws restricting peasants in free disposal of allotted land
• Returning peasants all money taken away from them as redemption payments and quit-rents in the past and to invalidate unjust contracts
• To form peasant committees to eradicate remnant of serf-owning system such as servitude, uncompleted allotment of land, its demarcation and so on
• To empower courts to reduce exorbitant rents and to declare null and void all contracts entailing peasant bondage
• Confiscation of land of monasteries and church property as well as crown estates and imposition of a special land tax on members of big landed estates in receipt of land redemption loans (it is remarkable to mention that in case of privately owned estates, the peasant programme proposed confiscation of the otrezki only)

R.S.D.L.P. (Bolshevik) held its First Conference in April, 1905. It comprised 24 delegates representing 20 Bolshevik Committees including all large organizations of the party, adopted revised peasant programme :

• Forming revolutionary peasant committees to immediately abolish all traces of power and privilege of landlord, actually disposing of confiscated lands, till establishment of new land tenure system by the National Constituent Assembly.
• To confiscate all land without compensation and redistributing amongst peasants (Redemption dues and otrezki were replaced with confiscation without compensation of private landownership).
• To abolish all taxes and services exacted from peasants.
• Authorizing courts, elected by people, to reduce exorbitant rents and annulment of all contracts entailing elements of bondage.
• To repeal all laws restricting peasants in disposing their land off.
• To organize the agriculture workers separately.

R.S.D.L.P (Bolshevik) Fourth (Unity) Congress in April, 1906 at Stockholm was attended by 111 delegates representing 57 local organizations of the party, adopted a new programme with one addition:
1.   To nationalize all land, transferring its ownership to the State.
     
R.S.D.L.P. (Bolshevik) adopted its new and revised peasant programme at its Seventh (April) All-Russian Conference on April 24-29, 1917:

• Complete confiscation and nationalization of all landed estates in Russia (also crown lands, church lands etc.) immediately, and transfer right of ownership to state vesting right to administer land in local democratic institutions, organized in the Soviets’ of Peasants’ Deputies, elected in a really democratic way and entirely independent of landowners’ and officials’ influence
• To advise peasants of taking over land in an organized way, not allowing slightest damage to property and adopt measures to increase production
• To support initiatives taken by peasants committees in handing over livestock and agricultural implements of landowners to peasants organized in committees to be used in a socially regulated manner for cultivation of all land
• To organize agriculture workers into separate unions forthwith
• To advise agriculture workers and semi-workers to strive for converting every landed estate into a fair-sized model farm to be run on public lines by the Soviets of Agricultural Workers Deputies under the direction of agricultural experts applying modern techniques.

Even after the Emancipation of 1861, the Russian allotment-holding peasants kept on working on lands of feudal utilizing their own implements and draught animals, hoping that somebody will grant them possession of their allotted land (otrezki). The Emancipation edict had only turned unpaid forced labour (barshchina) into labour rendered in payment of land rented (otrabotka) from landlord with a hope of acquiring it. Peasants were still not allowed to buy, sell or mortgage land. In the context of these objective conditions, the R.S.D.L.P (Bolshevik) laid down its radical peasant programme to win over sympathies of peasants. Its peasant programme underwent many modifications during 1903, 1905, 1906 and 1917 due to changed realities on the ground. R.S.D.L.P (Bolshevik), exponent of traditional Marxism, believed in essential destruction of peasants during transition from feudal to capitalist relations in agriculture. It urged to accomplish fundamental objective of democratic revolution i.e. destruction of Russian landlordism by making alliance of poor peasantry with working class. Moreover, it proposed organization of peasants into revolutionary peasant committees for bringing democratic reforms i.e. redistribution of land amongst peasants.
Meanwhile, Russian peasants’ attacks and burning landlords’ estates, their call for redistributing landlords’ estates, and setting up a constituent assembly through adult franchise, dawned on the Bolsheviks that peasants wanted to secure land and freedom by any means. Though, Bolsheviks were less popular amongst peasants than Mensheviks, they presented a revised peasant programme convincing poor peasants that their objectives were attainable only by remaining under supervision of working class. Moreover, the Bolsheviks believed that confiscation and nationalization of all landed estates shall eliminate substantial social base of autocracy as well as promote fully capitalist relations in agriculture. The state, being the sole landlord, shall provide land at moderate rent for bringing up improvement with advanced technology and agricultural techniques. To Bolsheviks, this could accelerate capitalist development on one hand and class struggle on the other between rural bourgeois and agriculture workers. The Bolsheviks considered advance to socialism could only be accomplished by organizing separate unions of agriculture workers under the leadership of working class.

Peasant Movement in Ghalla Dher, Mardan

Ghalla Dher is a small, one of the oldest villages in the heart of Pakhtun land, situated six miles away from Mardan, NWFP. In 1938, population of Ghalla Dher was about two thousands while elsewhere it has mentioned as three thousands and nine hundreds . However, an average population of Ghalla Dher could have been from four to five thousands. Poor pakhtun peasants, sharecropper or tenants of Nawab Hameedullah Khan of Toru were resided in seven to eight hundred mostly kacha, mud houses. There had been a few pakka, brick houses too. Some small villages such as Rashakai in the west, Khatko Killy in the east and Bago Banda, Bara Banda, Chauki and Khwo Killy etc., were also situated around Ghalla Dher.
The British policy of land revenue settlement created a landlord class in NWFP sowing seeds of hatred amongst poor peasants. Although purpose of the settlement had been to assign revenue tax liability, it conferred private property rights in land upon various classes of landholders. Individual private property rights, therefore, were introduced in the favour of the landholders, and then modified to protect the same class. Land settlement in NWFP elevated landholders but marginalized all other rural classes. Agricultural tenants, labourers, and non-cultivating service castes of various types traditionally enjoying claims over agricultural produce of land alongside landholders became dispossessed. The people of Ghalla Dher were all peasants of the Nawab of Toru who had persuaded the British rulers to grant him ownership of almost the entire land of village. He managed affairs of his lands at Ghalla Dher with help of his agents (Malik or Lambardar or Headman).
The Nawab used to collect heavy rents, baigar (work without any wage such as domestic cleanliness, taking the Nawab's family from one place to another, and keeping watch at night etc), monthly 50 paisa rent for each Kota (rented house), 20 to 30 rupees fine to Nazir (the supervisor) of Nawab for nothing, fines in case of disputes and quarrels among peasants and all sorts of illegal exactions from peasants with the help of his agents. With the British law and patronage behind him, it amounted to a systematic and naked exploitation of poor peasants. Nawab Hamidullah Khan, usually exercised his judicial powers, as the British had conferred upon him the authority of an Honorary Magistrate who could sentence a person to seven years imprisonment, impose fines, confiscate their lands, demolish their houses, charge them in both civil and criminal cases, imprison peasants in his private cells' and even mete out physical punishment to peasants (lashes etc). Thus hatred grew up and assumed the shape of a spontaneous Peasant Movement (Kisan Tehreek) opposing the 'eviction policy of peasants' at Ghalla Dher, Mardan in the August, 1938.
The poor peasants of the Ghalla Dher were also enrolled as members in the Khudai Khidmatgar Movement (Servant of God, formed in 1929, henceforth, KKM) and participated in freedom movement since 1929-30 despite their economic hardships, There were variety of reasons for joining included concerns about their own economic exploitation such as high rents, taxes, evictions by Khans and support of KKM to oppressed, starving and under-clothed peasants. Peasants considered KKM movement solely a movement for betterment of landless and poor peasants due to the fact that they formulated the majority of its membership.
Meanwhile, the Congress Socialist Party (offshoot of the Indian National Congress, formed in 1934) began more vocally supporting Ghalla Dher peasant movement than Indian National Congress (INC). The INC aimed at bringing reforms in land tenure system, reducing land rent, and debts to relief small peasantry and agriculture tenants, and organizing peasants into peasant unions within the domain of Congress principles. However, it urged peasants to pay land rents to their landlords and settle their land dispute through amicable means. Whereas, the Congress Socialist Party advocated its peasant programme: eliminating landlords’ estates without compensation, to redistribute land to peasants, to encourage and promote co-operative and collective farming by state, and to liquidate debts owned by peasants. Moreover, its local leaders agreed to support the 'just cause' of peasants. These included: Maulana Abdur Rahim Popalzai, Mian Akbar Shah, Mian Mukkaram Shah, Acharj Ram Ghumandi, Lal Din, Ram Saran Nagina, Bhagat Ram and Dr. Waris Khan and others. It urged to organize the red shirt peasants into peasant committees.
These politically conscious peasants, sharecropper or tenants began protesting over higher revenue that they already had to pay; they refused to pay fines and land rent at the moment. In June 1938, the Nawab obtained eviction orders against peasants of Ghalla Dher from the civil court Mardan but failed in the execution of those orders. The peasants resisted evictions; and even after being evicted they returned and cultivated some of the resumed lands. Meanwhile, local peasant leader Sahib Shah convened a meeting attended by most of the poor peasants of Ghalla Dher to resolve that they would resist evictions at any cost. Peasant leadership met authorities of the then government of KKM/INC and presented peasant programme listed below:

• To ban baigar completely;
• To withdraw Tora (a kind of tax of Rs. 10 levied on both the bride and the bridegroom, on the occasion of the marriage);
• To forbid eviction policy of  Nawab;
• To abolish Malba (tax collected for the donkeys, horses, and other livestock of the Nawab);
• Restriction on illegal fines and physical harassment of peasants completely,
• Recognition of peasant ownership of trees grown by them
• To pay compensation to peasants of their destroyed houses and to return of evicted houses occupied by the Nawab.

The negotiations failed to produce positive results. However, impact of the Ghalla Dher peasant movement was widespread. It had influenced adjoining areas and some others areas of NWFP such as Rashaki, district Mardan and North Hashtnagar. Peasants of North Hashtnagar raised voice for their rights in a manner similar to Ghalla Dheris.

Comparing Bolshevik Peasant Programme with Programme in Ghalla Dher

Following similarities and differences have been identified in peasant programmes: 
Peasants’ programmes, both of Russia and Ghalla Dher peasant movements’ have certain similarities and differences. R.S.D.L.P (Bolshevik) evolved a more advanced peasant programme keeping in view the need of peasants and realities of entire Russia. On the other hand, peasant programme of Ghalla Dher peasant movement was only of local, less advanced and limited in nature having minimum effects on surrounding areas. It was only a reaction against excesses of local landlords hence its influence remained limited and local. However, it set up a precedent and paved way for future peasant movements. Initially, in 1903, Bolshevik peasant programme advocated: abolition of exorbitant land rents, quit rents, tribute and unpaid forced labour. It advocated lifting of all restrictions on free disposal of land, and return of all money taken from peasants as redemption payment for land. Similarly, Ghalla Dher peasant programme advocated: abolition of baigar (unpaid forced labour), illicit and excessive taxes such as tora, malba taken from peasants. Moreover, Ghalla Dher peasant programme advocated ending all restrictions on peasants for making use of tress planted by them on landlords’ land, compensation for peasants’ houses destroyed by landlords, return of confiscated houses to peasants and fifty percent reduction in rate of taxes levied by landlords.
However, there are certain stark differences between the Bolshevik and Ghalla Dher peasant programmes. The Bolsheviks setup revolutionary peasant committees to end all remnants of feudalism. It advocated for empowering courts to reduce land rents and withdrawal of all unjust agreements binding peasants. Later it advocated nationalization of all land, its distribution through democratically elected local bodies, under state land rent mechanism and also setting up of separate organizations of agriculture workers in 1905, 1906 and 1917 respectively. Though Ghalla Dher peasant programme also setup peasant committees, however, they remained ineffective under dominant influence of non-violent KKM. These committees did nothing but held meetings and passed resolutions. Moreover, Ghalla Dher peasant programme did nothing to empower courts to reduce taxes or for confiscation or nationalization of all land.  

Peasant Movement in Shumali (North) Hashtnagar in 1970-78

Hashtnagar, meaning eight villages, comprises a large portion in Tehsil Charsadda, district Peshawar, NWFP (formerly district Peshawar included Peshawar Tehsil, Hashtnagar Tehsil and Mardan Tehsil). A strip of country that extends 10 miles eastward from the Swat River, and stretches from hills on the north to the Kabul River on the south including eight villages such as Prang, Charsadda, Razar, Uthmanzai, Umerzai, Turangzai, Sherpao and Tangi (presently Tangi is a Tehsil of district Charsadda). These villages have further expanded into various sub localities over the passage of time. The first seven villages together form the area of the South Hashtnagar while the area of Tangi including its Maira (high plain) is called North Hashtnagar. The total land of North Hashtnagar is 86266 acre, 7 kanal and 4 marlas in area consisting twenty five circles and fifty three villages (mauzas). The total land for arable cultivation is 67621 acre, 7 kanal and 10 marlas in which 50768 acre, 3 kanal and 7 marlas land is irrigated while 16853 acre, 4 kanal and 3 marlas is un-irrigated.
The area of North Hashtnagar is about twelve to fourteen miles long and eight to ten mile wide. It is a well irrigated and fertile area growing major crops such as Sugarcane, Virginia Tobacco, Corn and Sugar Beet. Wheat is mostly grown in its un-irrigated areas. It is a densely populated area and notable villages are Tangi, Harichand, Dhaki, Mandani, Behram Dheri and Shakoor etc. North Hashtnagar is divided into two sections: Proper Tangi and Tangi Maira. Both of these areas are separated from one another by a large Lower Swat irrigation canal. The total area of Tangi Maira is about 65423 acre, 5 Kanal and 6 marlas that is irrigated by upper Swat canal while lower Swat canal irrigates Tangi Proper which is about 9420 acre, 5 Kanal and 12 marlas in area. The rest of the area of North Hashtnagar is Sholgira that is measured about 11423 acre, 4 Kanal and 6 marlas.
North Hashtnagar occupies northern corner of district Peshawar beyond which lies the tribal territory. Towards North east lies Malakand Agency and towards North West are tribal territories of the UthmanKhel, Safi and Mohmand. District Dir lies short of tribal areas and to the West is Afghanistan.
The Proper Tangi lies 29 miles north of Peshawar and it is divided into two sections (Kandis), called Barazai and Nasratzai. There is a police station of the first class. The inhabitants are mostly Mohammadzai Pathan. There lived big (six to eight) and small land owners (twenty to thirty) who acquired landownership as well as Panjotra (5 % of the land tax) from the British in lieu of services to them like collecting Abiana (water tax) and Malia (land tax) both in proper Tangi as well as in Maira Tangi. These included: Khan Behadur Mir Alam Khan (owning jareeb 18000 equivalent to 9000 acres), Faqir Khan (jareeb 4000=2000 acres) of Barazai and Mohammad Ali Khan (jareeb 30000=15000 acres), Abdul Akbar Khan (jareeb 16000=8000 acres), Ghulam Ahmad Jan Khan (jareeb 4000=2000 acres) of Nasratzai and some others. Each land owner has sixty to hundreds mud-covered houses for his servants who live without paying any rent, known as Faqirano or Hamsaya Koruna or Faqir Nama. These hamsayas comprised mostly peasants (50 %) and other included professionals such as chamyar (cobbler), lohar (ironsmith), nai (barber) shopkeepers, merchants and others. They used to provide unpaid services to their landowners.
Maira Tangi, the property of Khans, comprised Mahaals (subsection of Tehsil) such as Mahaal Shakoor of Mohammad Ali Khan (including villages like Shakoor, Mandani, Behram Dheri etc.), Mahaal Gandheri of Faqir Khan and Amjid Khan (Janiko, Gandheri etc.), Mahaal Chel of Saifullah Khan and Tori Khan (Chel, Sur Qamar etc), Mahaal Hisara Payan of Iqbal Khan (Hisara etc.), Mahaal Rai of Abdul Akbar Khan (Rai, Daud Khan Killy etc.), Mahaal Shodag (Shodag etc.), and Mahaal Dobande (Dobande etc.). However, small landowners had also acquired land in different areas of North Hashtnagar such as Muslim Khan (450 acres in Shakoor and Gandheri), Khan Shireen Khan (300 acres in Gandheri), Jamil Khan (300 acres in Mandani), Aurangzeb Khan (250 acres in Pirano killy), Niaz Mohammad Khan (250 acres in Gandheri), Abdus Samad Khan (150 acres in Harichand), Yar Mohammad Khan (65 acres in Doab), and Siddiqullah (49 acres in Janiko) and so on.
The class structure in North Hashtnagar included: 5% of big land owners which occupied almost thousands of acres of land from total area. Besides, non-owners comprised 95% including lease-holding peasants who were 10%, middle peasants 40% and poor peasants were 50% in peasantry class structure of North Hashtnagar. However, farm or agriculture workers (rural proletariat) consisted of half of the 95% of the non-owners and there was no factory in the area at the beginning of the peasant movement in North Hashtnagar.
In North Hashtnagar of Tehsil Charsadda, the British chose Mohammadzai tribe to be worthy of their favour and granted them large estates. Poor helpless peasants of Mohmand, Shahdad Khel subsection of UtmanKhel, Mohammadzai tribes and some other small groups such as Behram Dheriwal, Ghandheriwal, Khattak and Gigiani soon fell victims to their oppression just as peasants of Tehsil Mardan had fallen victim to oppression of Nawab of Toru. These oppressions included: baigar (unpaid forced labour), presenting two chickens to Khan before sowing and after reaping harvest, women of peasants paid baigar at residence of Khan, Tip (forced extraction of 5 % from wheat and 10% from maize crop in kind), Babat-e-Barnaqi {a share taken from wheat crop, maize crop and gur (raw sugar) without any reason}, Ser Mani (taken as share of 1/40th from every 40 kg of wheat), Tora (a matrimonial tax taken on the occasion of marriage in peasant family), Qula (a kind of share from heap of wheat), Pashgi {an advance payment to Khan as a security at time of agreement between peasant and Khan for land given on lease or Nisf-e-Batai (half and half in share of crop)}, a lamb presented to Khan at occasion of marriage in Khan’s family, trees standing on land were property of Khan, wearing of clean and neat cloths were not allowed to peasants, beating, harassments, and eviction of peasants from the land  and so on.
The seeds of peasant movement had already been sown in North Hashtnagar. For instance, in 1948 a landlord-peasant dispute occurred at Tangi, North Hashtnagar, on issue of peasants’ eviction and increased land lease rent. Ziarat Gul of Hatian and Abdul Sattar of Khadi Killi, Tahkt Bai, of Mardan reached there and formed Ittehad-i-Mohmand Jirga (United Mohmand Association) or a Peasant Committee under presidency of Ziarat Gul. They preceded peasant struggle by arranging processions against the peasants’ eviction from their lands. During 1948 they convened several meetings at North Hashtnagar and Mardan districts in connection with peasant reforms, to raise a strong voice against Khan and to improve lot of peasants. Later on, peasant leaders joined National Awami Party (NAP) in 1957 as a front organization in connection with peasant reforms. But despite their efforts, it did not yet take form of a political movement due to following reasons. Demands of peasant committees in NAP were low and of reformist nature in early life of peasant struggle such as:

• Exemption from land tax (malia) on small land holdings up to twelve and a half acres,
• Installation of water meters on irrigation culverts.
• Provision of agricultural implements and fertilizers on subsidized rates etc.

During course of struggle, a convention of peasants was convened by Maulana Abdul Hameed Khan Bhashani of NAP {a Maoist peasant leader from East Pakistan and leader of Krishik Smkiti (peasant committee)} at Khanewal (Punjab) on April 27-28, 1963, and decided to form Peasant Committees all over the West Pakistan both at Tehsil and district levels, When the Peasant Committees were formed in 1963 at Khanewal, Major (R) Mohammad Ishaq was elected as its Convener, It aimed to resolve problems of lease-holding peasants, agriculture workers, landless peasants and small landowners through constitutional means. This dedicated efforts to organize and inspire many old and new revolutionary workers to jump into the arena of active politics once again. These included: Ziarat Gul, Mian Shaheen Shah, Abdul Sattar, Sher Ali Bacha many others who formed Sarhad (Kisan) Peasant Committee. Whereas, Mohammad Afzal Bangash, advocate, played important role in fighting to protect legal rights of peasants. These workers worked consciously, secretly and untiringly in North Hashtnagar for five continuous years in order to organize peasants in form of Peasant Committees.
In autumn of 1963-64 Major (R) Ishaq Mohammad, Afzal Bangash, Abdus Sattar, Kaptan Sarfraz and Ziarat Gul visited North Hashtnagar to form peasant committees. The first Peasant Committee was formed in 1963 at Chel Mahaal, in the Yaar Jaan Kalli of Harichand, North Hashtnagar and some others with designations. However, a network of peasant committees following the principle of democratic centralism rapidly flourished and evolved in North Hashtnagar till the formation of MKP in 1968. A five to seven member village peasant committee served as basic unit of organization then central committee that comprised three to six village peasant committees. These central committees worked under Tehsil committee which in turn worked under District committee. These, in turn, worked under the final authority of Provincial Committee.
The ideological learning and study circles had been provided by different comrades at different peasant committees such as Ziarat Gul of Mardan, and Kaptaan Sarfraz of Amirabad at house of Wahab Siddeen of Yaar Jaan Kalli and Fareedullah, Advocate of Kheshgi (Nowshera), Shahjehan, Advocate of Mardan practicing in Swat and Sayyadullah at Spalmai, Singapur, Behram Khan Dheri and other. Variety of subjects and topics in study circles were debated and discussed such as demands of Sarhad peasant committee, ways and means of peasant committee, do justice with poor peasants’, class conflict, peoples’ democracy and methods to achieve goal and some others. Later on, members of peasant committees were introduced to political leaders such as Sher Ali Bacha of Mardan, Ghulam Nabi Kalu of Faislabad (Punjab), Major Ishaq of Faisalabad (Punjab), and Mohammad Afzal Bangash of Kohat. The peasant leadership took inspiration from Marxism, Bolshevism of Russia and Maoism of China. Though, MKP had a stronghold in North Hashtnagar, however, it had also some similar organizations in South Hashtnagar of Tehsil Charsadda, Warsak of Peshawar, Takht Bhai, Lund Khwar in district Mardan and Skhakot in Malakand Agency.
Sarhad Peasant committee was a nonpolitical class based organization comprising lease-holding relatively rich peasants, agriculture workers, rural artisans, small landowners and rural shopkeepers. Broadly, it advocated following peasant programme in North Hashtnagar:

• To organize peasants into peasant committees raising their awareness about their social, political rights and liberties and emancipating peasants from political, social and economic slavery of landlords.
• To provide basic human rights to peasants, to amicably resolve intra peasant disputes, to bring an end to outdated customs and traditions and other evils of feudal system. To create class consciousness amongst peasants and basic institutions of Peoples’ Democracy based upon the principal of self-determination such as peoples courts etc.
• To work collectively to form communes, to bring an end to forced evictions of peasants from lands and houses by organizing armed resistance, levy of fines. To increase wage of agriculture workers and share of peasant, to bring a qualitative change in their lives.
• To end feudal relations in rural areas through agrarian reforms such as raising agricultural productivity by providing good seeds, cheap fertilizers, advanced machines with improved techniques and to sell and buy land.
• To allow maximum limit for landownership i.e. 50 acres of irrigated and 100 acres of arid land, and distribution of remaining land amongst landless poor peasants and agriculture workers limiting 25 jareeb of land per family, to win over the backing of small land owners and to amicably resolve intra peasant land disputes and also dispute between small land owner and peasants , and every lease-holding peasant, who received land as a result of peasant struggle against feudalism, had to grant one jareeb (0.5 acres) of land to agriculture worker.
• To sale state lands to landless peasants on installments and to install water meters on irrigation culverts to avoid male-distribution of water.
•  To stop highhandedness and exploitation of landlords’ henchmen and Nazirs and to organize collective strength of peasant, small landowners and agriculture workers into peasant committees.
• To acquire state land for Mosques, schools, homes, hospitals, graveyards, etc.
• To stop unpaid forced labour (baigar) and fines. No peasant shall go to offer salaam and present chicken, eggs and other dairy product to Khan and peasants shall settle their disputes amongst themselves,
• Exemption from land tax (malia) on small land holdings up to twelve and a half acres,

Comparing Bolshevik Peasant Programme with That of North Hashtnagar

Following similarities and differences have been identified in two peasant programmes: 
The Bolshevik peasant programme emphasized complete ending to private landownership and emancipating peasants from all political restrictions. Initially, it aimed at providing freedom to peasants from oppressions and exploitation of landlords; reduce land rents, return of all money to peasants paid by them for land during Emancipation Reforms in 1861, and annulment of all unjust agreements between landlords and peasants in 1903. Whereas, programme of the Sarhad peasant committee, North Hashtnagar advocated acquisition of basic human rights, formation of peasant organizations, to achieve political, social and economic rights and liberating peasants from clutches of feudal lords. Peasant committee, North Hashtnagar struggled: to stop forced eviction of peasants from lands and houses, by organizing armed resistance; to oppose levying unjust fines; and to enhance peasants share in yield and wage of agriculture workers. Moreover, it made mandatory upon those land holding peasants, who received land as a result of peasant struggle against feudalism, to grant one jareeb (0.5 acres) of land to agriculture worker. It revealed its intent to land reforms by limiting influence of landlords’ i.e. abolishing remnants of feudalism.
Later Russian working class led by Bolshevik, advocated in 1905 strategic and revolutionary peasant programme confiscating all feudal land without compensation and its distribution amongst peasants. Hence, it emphasized taking land away from private landowners and to nationalize it. Conversely, peasant programme of Sarhad peasant committee fixed maximum limit of land ownership i.e. 100 jareeb (50 acres) of irrigated and 200 jareeb (100 acres) of arid land. It also urged distribution of land above ceiling fixed amongst landless peasants not exceeding 25 jareebs per family. This movement pursued local, limited and reformist objectives aimed at curtailing dominant influence of feudal lords.
The Bolshevik peasant programme urged setting up revolutionary peasant committees taking lands away from feudal lords and bringing about revolutionary and democratic reforms by working class in alliance with peasantry. Whereas, Sarhad peasant committee, North Hashtnagar advocated setting up peasant committee and urged to stop forced eviction of peasants from lands by organizing armed resistance. It also urged amicable resolution of intra peasant land disputes and also disputes between small land owners and peasants to win support of these small landowners against feudal lords. By 1906 and 1917, Bolshevik peasant programme evolved urging confiscation of feudal land and granting it to state cooperatives or local bodies under state land rent mechanism. However, Sarhad peasant committee aimed at stopping forced peasants’ eviction and to bring an end to remnants of feudal customs. It urged provision of land to landless in order to unite various strata of peasants and to weaken bigger private landowners. Its peasant programme permitted holding of 25 jareeb land per family, hence, promoted democracy and agrarian capitalism.
The Bolsheviks emphasized using active propaganda amongst urban working class as its support was considered necessary for success of their peasant programme. It urged to organize agriculture workers on the pattern of urban working class and to unite them as an independent class organization enabling them to struggle to abolish feudalism under leadership of urban working class. Conversely, Sarhad peasant committee, North Hashtnagar comprised lease-holding peasants’ relatively rich peasants, small land owners and agriculture workers did not include urban working class in this struggle. Though, agricultural workers remained in the forefront of peasant struggle, however, the leadership failed in uniting them into an independent single class organization. Fruits of peasant struggle were reaped by lease-holding rich peasants alone, giving rise to contradictions between them and agriculture workers. Temporary gains of peasant movement in North Hashtnagar in terms of control over land dampened their spirit of struggle, especially of rich peasants. They became free from landlords’ influence, having no fear of eviction with more land in hand and lesser land rent to pay. Since, it benefited them alone, they began acting like small landowners; started hoarding agricultural produce and capital in banks; bought lands, tractors, and trucks. Some peasants entered in trade of farm produce such as gur (raw sugar) and fertilizers. Consumer goods such as bicycles, transistor radios, and electric fans became part of rural household. In short, increased money-commodity relations through mechanization of rural farming and increased contact with market for seeds and fertilizers as well as consumer goods paved way for agrarian capitalism.
The Bolshevik peasant programme advocated collective empowerment of peasants and cancellation of all feudal era discriminatory laws preventing peasants from land acquisition. Moreover, it strived for right to: freedom of speech; to form associations, forfeiture of church and royal lands and impose heavy taxes on big landlords’. Sarhad peasant committee, North Hashtnagar advocated sale of state lands to landless peasants on installments. It also advocated assessment of water tax on the basis of income tax paid by landowners having more than 25 jareeb (12.5 acres) land. It also urged setting up mechanism to measure proper amount of irrigation water given to each landowner and to waiver of water tax on 12 and half acres of land. The programme of Sarhad peasant committee in North Hashtnagar was also to struggle for right to hold public meetings and form political associations. Moreover, it also demanded grant of state land for mosques, schools, hospitals, and graveyards.
The Bolshevik peasant programme favoured empowerment of courts bringing end to cruel practices of landlords upon bonded peasants and unjust rates of land rents. Similarly, program of Sarhad peasant committee, North Hashtnagar attempted bringing end to the excesses carried out by feudal lords and their supervisors (Nazirs), stoppage of unpaid forced labour, and practice of giving feudal lords chicken and eggs as gifts. It also worked for enabling peasants to solve their intra peasant problems among themselves. Even, Sarhad peasant committee, North Hashtnagar established people’s courts in some of the areas such as in Malakand Agency under Supreme Peasant Judge, an elder Syed Nazeef Kaka. These courts not only solved intra peasant disputes but also between peasants and small landowners as well as regulated rates of land rent.

Conclusion

Bolshevik Russian peasant programme of R.S.D.L.P., had a great impact upon programme of peasant movements in NWFP. Numerous national progressive young men from NWFP who had studied at the University of Toilers, Moscow, in 1920s and inspired by the Russian Bolshevism subsequently joined the spontaneous peasant movement of Ghalla Dher, in 1938. They collaborated with local peasant leaders and shaped list of peasant demands. The peasant movements and their leaders were much influenced by local political movements such as the KKM and the Congress Socialist Party. Their struggle has been peaceful and political in nature. Hence, the impact of these peasant movements remained limited. They advocated forbidding forced eviction, withdrawal of heavy taxes, fines and practices such as Tora and Malba taxes etc. However, impact of the Bolshevism was more explicit and profound on peasant movement launched in the North Hashtnagar in 1970s. The movement had been more organized, leadership deeply influenced by Bolshevik Marxist ideology successfully evolved more advanced peasant programme than Ghalla Dher.
Firstly, they succeeded in setting up a network of peasant committees in rural areas of North Hashtnagar and followed the principle of democratic centralism. Secondly, impact of the Bolshevism laid deep imprints on peasant movement in North Hashtnagar where the movement strived to achieve freedom of peasants from oppression and exploitation of landlords’. It reduced land rents, enhanced peasants’ share in yield and stopped forced eviction of peasants from lands and houses through armed resistance, opposed levying of unjust fines, and enhanced wages of agriculture workers. It also succeeded in getting socio-political and economic rights of peasants such as right to get education, holding public meetings, contest election, cast votes and right to sell and purchase land.
Thirdly, Sarhad peasant committee strengthened alliance of lease-holding peasants, sharecroppers and agriculture workers, since basic conflict existed between big landlords and lease-holding peasants on the one hand and between big landowners and sharecroppers as well as agriculture workers on the other. Fourthly, lack of urban workers and limited number of agriculture workers in North Hashtnagar drove peasants to form an alliance with small landowners too. It aimed at neutralizing small landowners preventing their siding with landlords. Sarhad peasant committee declared all those small landowners allies who were not involved in forced eviction of peasants, avoided unpaid forced labour, unjust taxes and paid proper amount of land rent and share in the yield to peasants. Thus, isolated big landowners and attempted to enforce land reforms. This political strategy and tactics it seems has been Bolshevik. Since Bolshevik made an alliance of urban and rural proletariat and neutralized the peasantry to demolish autocracy in Russia.
Finally, most striking impact of Bolshevism on peasant movement in North Hashtnagar has been that it brought feudal lords and their system to its knees forcing them to accept some of peasants’ demands. Although the movement failed in rooting out feudal landlordism in its entirety, however, it unified peasants into a force to be reckoned with. Landlords were forced to make conciliatory agreements with peasants in terms of land sale deeds and as a result lost power and influence considerably. Material gains by peasants as a result of their struggle improved their financial conditions enabling them to provide better health care and education to their offspring. Numerous of them earned professional qualifications in medicine and engineering. Increased money-commodity relation also led to agrarian capitalism in terms of mechanized farming and use of fertilizers, better seeds and pesticides. Also more democratic relationship in the rural areas emerged.

Bibliography

Unpublished Archival Documents

Office of the Tehsildar., [1926-27]: List of Circles, Mauzas and Total Area of North Hashtnagar. Tangi district Charsadda.
Office of the Tehsildar., [1926-27]: Register Dakhil-wa- Kharij Numberdaran Bamujib Ahkam-e-Sahib Barai Dehat. Tangi district Charsadda.
Department: Directorate of Archives. [1938 & 1948]: Special Branch Record Section, Police Department, Bundle No. 1, List No. I; Serial No. 9 & Bundle No. 12, List III; File No. AZ-4, Serial No. 192, Vol. III, Peshawar, Government to N.W.F.P.

Unpublished MA Dissertation

Ali, I., [2006]: Ghalla Dher Kisan Movement-An Appraisal. An unpublished MA Dissertation, Pakistan Study Centre, University of Peshawar.

Published Books

Ahmad, N., [2002]: Imperial Gazetteer of India North-West Frontier Province. Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore.
Atkinson, D. [1983]: The End of the Russian Land Commune (1905-1930). Stanford University Press, California.
Auty, R., and D. Obolensky, [1976]: Companion to Russian Studies I-An Introduction to Russian History. Cambridge University Press, Sidney.
Bacha, S.A., [1973]: Zamung Da Tehreek Ao Zarori Karoona. Shaheen Barqi Press, MKP, NWFP, Peshawar.
Blinnikov M., [2011]: Geography of Russia and Its Neighbours. TheGuildford Press, New York.
Commission of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B)., [1939]: History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks). International Publishers, New York.
Dove, M., [1987]: “Election Manifesto of the All India Congress Committee of the Indian National Congress, 22-23 August 1936” in: Forfeited Future-The Conflict Over Congress Ministries in British India 1933-1937 at pp 445-449. Chanakya Publications, Dehli.
Duke, P., [1974]: History of Russia, Medieval Modern and Contemporary. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Figes, O., [1996]: A people’s Tragedy-A History of the Russian Revolution. Cambridge University Press.
Gleason, A., [2009]: Blackwell Companions to World History-A Companion to Russian History. Blackwell Publishing Limited, UK.
Gorshkov, B., [2005]: A Life Under Russian Serfdom 1800-1868. Central European University Press, Budapest & New York.
Government, Punjab., [1989]:  Gazetteer of the Peshawar District 1897-98. Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore.
Harding, N., [1977]: Lenin’s Political Thought- Theory and Practice in the Democratic Revolution. Vol. I, MacMillan Press, Ltd, London.
Khan, W., [1988]: Da Azadai Tehreek. Peshawar.
Kingston, E., [1983]: Lenin and the Problem of Marxist Peasant Revolution. New York Oxford University Press, USA.
Kort, M., [2008]: A Brief History of Russia. Boston University, USA.
Leatherbarrow, W., and D. Offord, [2010]: A History of Russian Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Lenin, V.I., [1962, 1964, 1965, and 1972]: Collected Works. Vols. 06, 08, 10, 13, 24, Progress & Foreign Language Publishers, Moscow.
Leonard, C., [2011]: Agrarian Reforms in Russia: The Road from Serfdom. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Moss, W., [2005]: History of Russia, since 1855. Vol. II, Second Edition, Wimbledon Publishing Company, London.
Nagina, R., [1939]: Surkhposh Kisan Ya Tehreek-e-Ghalla Dhe. Peshawar.
Podkolzin, A., [1968]: A Short Economic History of the USSR, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
Popalzai, J., [1992]: Suba Sarhad Ki Inqilabi Tehreekein Aor Maulana Abdur Rahim Popalzai. Fiction House, Lahore.
Shah, W., [1999]: Ethnicity, Islam, and Nationalism (Muslim Politics in North West Frontier Province 1937-1947). Oxford University Press.
Sitaramayya, P., [1947]: The History of the Indian National Congress-1935-1947. Vol. II, Padma Publications Ltd, Bombay.
Smith, G., [1988]: Soviet Politics Continuity And Contradiction. Macmillan Education Ltd, London.
Stearns, P., [2008]: World History in Documents: A Comparative Reader. Second Edition, New York University Press, NY.
Sukhan, R., [1939]: Tehreek-e-Azadi. Popular Front Literature Society, Bradlaugh Hall, Lahore.
Talwar, B., [1976]: The Talwars of the Pathan Land and Subhash Chandra Bose’ Great Escape. Peoples Publishing House, Rani Jhansi Road, New Dehli.
Tendulkar, D.G, [1967]: Abdul Ghaffar Khan-faith is a battle. Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
Thackeray, F., [2007]: Events That Changed Russia Since 1855.  Greenwood Press, USA.
Watson, S., [1952]: The Decline of Imperial Russia (1855-1914). Methuen & Company, Butler & Tanner Ltd, Great Britain.

Newspapers/Journals/Weekly Magazines/Pamphlets/Circulars

Nashar-wa-Ishaat Committee., [1973, 1974, 1975 & 1976]: Circular of Mazdoor Kisan Party. Issue Nos. 54, 65, 81, 90. MKP, Lahore.
Fareedullah. [ND]: Dushman Pehchano-Dost Pehchano. Mazdoor Kisan Party, Peshawar, NWFP.
Iskra., [June, 1902]: Draft of the Party Program. Issue No. 21.
Zaighum, H. S. [ND]: Khabarnama. Issue Nos. 37 & 39, Central Office of MKP, Begum Road, Lahore.
Maseeh, W., [August, 1970]: Manifesto of Mazdoor Kisan Party. MKP, Karachi.
Pravda., [April 07, 1917]: Issue No. 26.
Pravda., [May 13, 1917]: Issue No. 45.
The Tribune., [February 10, 1938].
Weekly Sanobar., [October 23, 1970]: Organ of Mazdoor Kisan Party. 
Weekly Vperyod., [June-May, 1905].
Workers Group.,[1977]: Mazdoor Kisan Party Mein Nazriayti Ikhtilaf. Punjab Mazdoor Kisan Party, Lahore.

Personal Interviews

Personal Interview with Akbar Ji, Secretary, National Awami Party (NAP) in 1965, dated: December 12, 2006.
Personal Interview with Dr. Iqbal Safi, son of peasant leader Ziarat Gul of Mardan, dated: June 27, 2012.
Personal Interview with Inayatullah Yasir, Deputy Joint Secretary of MKP (1978-1986), dated: February 07, 2013.
Personal Interview with Jamal Khan- a red shirt peasant participated actively in peasant movement, Ghalla Dher, Mardan in 1938 and a prisoner of Haripur jail on August 30, 1938, dated: 12/07/2007.
Personal Interview with Master Nisar and Master Tahir of Nadir Mian Kalli, Harichand, Charsadda, members of Student Organization an affiliate to Kisan Committee, dated: 13/February/2006.
Personal Interview with Mohammad Amin, a small landowner of Tangi Nasratzai, Charsadda, dated: May 31, 2012.
Personal Interview with Mohammad-ul-Allah, a peasant and Central President of Peasant Committee (1970-78) at Khalil Killey, Zeyum, Tangi Maira, Charsadda, dated: June 14, 2012.
Personal Interview with Noor-ul-Zafar, Patwari (1965-1993), Tangi Nasratzai, Charsadda, dated: June 01, 2012.
Personal Interview with Sher Ali Khan of Gandheri, Ex Girdawar (1975-2010), Charsadda, dated: June 12, 2012.
Personal Interview with Siddiqullah, President of Association of Small Landowners, Tangi, Charsdda, dated: 02/07/2012.
Personal Interview with Syed Fazal Dayan, Qanungo, Tehsil Tangi, dated: June 18, 2012.