Each nE included two or three AAuA ('khails' according to Ahmad
1962); each had a ma/uA, but the representative of the whole unit was the
AAun. He had to support the Aq/Fu, the guest house that offered hospitali-
ty to visitors, among whom some were permanent residents, modestly
fed by the AAurz. For special tasks Dorns, Gujars and Kohistanis were
needed, but they remained outsiders.
To understand the permanent cooperation among participants of a was A
we should be aware that, even after the most egalitarian allotment, the
actual work m the fields and the administration of the land was directed
by the leader of the household. Women lost their share entirely or re-
ceived no more than a child - a third of what was conceded to an adult
male. Moreover, a considerable amount of land was mortgaged. British
authors mention examples.
In practice and m contrast to the original intention, a very high percent-
age of the land was occupied by the dominant families. In the case of
new settlements, even subsequent to migration, the common man
received no more than he had previously occupied wasA). At
times, shares were reduced in order to enable the headman to include
respected warriors m his tu/. He might even accept people of a lower
social position m recognition of their bravery.
Frequently, this was a reason for internal conflicts. On the other hand,
the whole area of the m/ had to be defended when, after the re-allotment,
some partners claimed to have been treated unfairly.
In spite of the efforts of the administrations, especially that of Miangul
Abdul Wadud, the former ruler of Swat, there is only one area in which
the wasA-system has not lost its importance. When a part of the 80,000
acres of arable land belonging to the tribes of the Black Mountain was
needed after the construction of Tarbela Dam, 30,000 acres were flooded
(Nayyar 1988:18). This was a classical case for the implementation of a
y'Agu, ordering an application of the wasA-principle on a vast scale, and
I was told that a re-allotment of the remaining lands was planned.
112
1962); each had a ma/uA, but the representative of the whole unit was the
AAun. He had to support the Aq/Fu, the guest house that offered hospitali-
ty to visitors, among whom some were permanent residents, modestly
fed by the AAurz. For special tasks Dorns, Gujars and Kohistanis were
needed, but they remained outsiders.
To understand the permanent cooperation among participants of a was A
we should be aware that, even after the most egalitarian allotment, the
actual work m the fields and the administration of the land was directed
by the leader of the household. Women lost their share entirely or re-
ceived no more than a child - a third of what was conceded to an adult
male. Moreover, a considerable amount of land was mortgaged. British
authors mention examples.
In practice and m contrast to the original intention, a very high percent-
age of the land was occupied by the dominant families. In the case of
new settlements, even subsequent to migration, the common man
received no more than he had previously occupied wasA). At
times, shares were reduced in order to enable the headman to include
respected warriors m his tu/. He might even accept people of a lower
social position m recognition of their bravery.
Frequently, this was a reason for internal conflicts. On the other hand,
the whole area of the m/ had to be defended when, after the re-allotment,
some partners claimed to have been treated unfairly.
In spite of the efforts of the administrations, especially that of Miangul
Abdul Wadud, the former ruler of Swat, there is only one area in which
the wasA-system has not lost its importance. When a part of the 80,000
acres of arable land belonging to the tribes of the Black Mountain was
needed after the construction of Tarbela Dam, 30,000 acres were flooded
(Nayyar 1988:18). This was a classical case for the implementation of a
y'Agu, ordering an application of the wasA-principle on a vast scale, and
I was told that a re-allotment of the remaining lands was planned.
112