please read these and write a summary what did you understand please don't copy lines please I write what did you understand your analysis word limit 700-750 I gave you a vote please do it thanks it's urgent

Land reforms represented a vital link in the chain of measures that I proposed. We could not have a democratic system if a vast majority of people in the countryside were living the life of serfs. Voting, in such a situation, had no meaning as whole constituencies were controlled and dominated by a few landlords. Experience had shown that even under the so-called direct elections the trend of voting was dictated by four or five people in each area. The power of landlords could be curtailed, by breaking up large estates and fixing a ceiling on the maximum area each person could own. But it was also important that the class which would emerge as a result of the redistribution of land should have sufficient interest to invest in land and to treat it as a whole-time occupation. In this way we would also help in the building up of a strong middle class. I tried to ascertain the income which would enable a family to live reasonably well on the land by working hard. I wanted to fix the maximum land holding at a level which would provide adequate income to a family to work whole-time on land and to invest in its modernization and development. I knew from experience that in a large number of families the widows and unmarried women were forced to give away their shares to the male members of the family. If the landholding of a male member was reduced too drastically he would just drive the women out. That meant that some provision would be necessary to allow landlords to bequeath land, subject to a maximum limit, to dependants and widows. We adopted a ceiling of 18,000 units for this purpose, a unit being based on the productivity of the land and thus varying from area to area. This measure, too, contributed towards a wider distribution of land. These were the ideas according to which the ceilings of the land-holding were fixed. We also bore in mind the fact that the unit of holding should be large enough to enable mechanized agriculture to be introduced and better fertilizers and seeds to be used. The requirements of social justice and the interests of economic development are not always identical. It was thus a difficult task that I had set for the Commission. I had also required it to submit its recommendations with all possible speed. Despite the complexity of the task, it was able to produce a comprehensive report within three months. The main findings of the Commission were that in relation to the size of the rural population, land offered limited economic opportunity. The ownership of land in many areas was also inequitably distributed. Employment opportunities outside agriculture being relatively few, there was growing congestion on the land. The pressure of population and the laws of inheritance were creating uneconomic and highly fragmented holdings. Despite the availability of the necessary manpower, the development of large estates was often very slow and a considerable portion of the cultivable land was not being utilized to full capacity. Tenants suffered from a general sense of insecurity. They were denied rewards commensurate with their efforts. Initiative and enterprise were utterly lacking and there w as no productive investment in agriculture. To remedy these defects the Commission recommended certain specific measures as the minimum programme of land reform and the government, after a careful consideration of the recommendations, announced its decisions on 24 January 1959. The following, in outline, were some of the major decisions: no person was to own more than 500 acres of irrigated or 1,000 acres of unirrigated land with minor exceptions relating to existing land-owners, and the land thus released would be distributed to tenants and other deserving claimants: landlords would be paid compensation for resumed land in the form of heritable and transferable 4 percent bonds, redeemable in twenty-five years, on a fixed scale according to the number of units owned; existing tenants on such land would be given the opportunity to buy it on installments spread over twenty-five years, and special consideration would be given to tenants in congested areas. All tenants would have security of tenure: compensation would be paid for legal ejectment and an embargo placed on rent increases and illegal exactions in the shape of fees, free labor or services. The division of holdings below an economic level would be forbidden and provision made for the compulsory consolidation of already fragmented holdings. The most important of these measures was the imposition of a low ceiling on individual ownership. This served to break the concentration of landed wealth in the hands of some 6,000 landlords throughout West Pakistan, It reduced the area of inequality and encouraged more intensive use of land and productive investment in agriculture by the actual tiller of the soil. These reforms helped substantially in eliminating social and economic injustice and contributed to the establishment of a progressive agricultural economy. Apart from the dictates of social justice to which we subscribed, I considered the introduction of these reforms an absolute necessity for the survival of the system and values that we cherished and that brought Pakistan into being as a free State. My approach to the problem was not emotional. My idea was that even after the reforms, fanning as a profession should remain sufficiently respectable and profitable to attract and engage suitable talent on a whole-time basis. It should provide a standard of living which would compare favorably with that obtaining in other professions. My anxiety was not to destroy the existing system but to improve upon it so that it should provide opportunities for enterprise and produce leadership capable of influencing rural life. The landlords were guaranteed a fair and equitable deal and, with the compensation they received, they were able to adjust themselves, without undue hardship, to the changed situation. For the peasants it was a Magna Carta of rights. We had done all that could possibly be done for them in the prevailing circumstances. For the first time, their role as a crucial