By Dr. Farhan
In June 2002, Pakistan announced a decision that surprised many both at home and abroad. The government allowed several corporations to take control of thousands of acres of agricultural land for corporate farming and promised to provide all necessary infrastructure. The concept was simple: create vast agricultural estates where modern technology could boost national production.
Yet there was an obvious complication. Only a handful of major landowners possessed estates large enough for such ventures, leaving small farmers entirely excluded. The proposed solution was to consolidate smaller holdings under large corporate management, a move officials claimed would modernize agriculture and benefit the people.
Several companies, mostly international conglomerates with Western investors, were invited to invest under this scheme. After considerable debate, the government decided to permit multinational corporations to purchase agricultural land directly. However, the Federal Board of Revenue raised legal objections, temporarily halting the process.
On June 20, 2002, during a press conference in Lahore, the then-Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Nisar Memon, offered a solution: instead of selling farmland outright, the state would lease it to corporations. This, he argued, would resolve the legal concerns while still encouraging foreign investment.
The military leadership of the time praised the move as visionary and essential for Pakistan’s agricultural advancement. Corporate investment, they insisted, would bring modern techniques, foreign capital, and prosperity to rural communities. But independent scholars and patriotic citizens, drawing on past experience, voiced grave warnings. They feared that foreign ownership, even in the guise of leases, could lead to the slow erosion of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Those who sounded this alarm were swiftly sidelined or discredited.
Critics pointed to a telling historical parallel. For nearly eight decades, Palestine had been a province of the Ottoman Caliphate, where Jews were permitted to visit holy sites but were strictly forbidden from purchasing land or establishing permanent settlements. The Ottoman rulers understood the Zionist ambition to gradually settle the territory and establish a state called Israel.
Sultan Abdul Hamid II himself recorded in his memoirs that Theodor Herzl, the leader of the World Zionist Organization, had personally met him several times seeking permission to buy land in Palestine for limited Jewish settlement. The Sultan refused outright. When Herzl offered him a check and a vast sum of money, Sultan Abdul Hamid rebuked him harshly, declaring, “This will never happen in my lifetime.” He then refused to meet Herzl again.
Soon after, a political movement emerged to remove the Sultan from power. He was deposed and placed under house arrest. In his memoirs, he later wrote that Jews had played a strong role in the plot to overthrow him, and that one of the members of the Turkish Advisory Council involved in his removal was Jewish. After the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1920, Palestine slipped from Muslim control. The British occupied it, and under their supervision Jewish immigration and settlement began in earnest.
Jews arrived from all over the world, purchased land, and established settlements. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, leading Muslim scholars issued a fatwa declaring it unlawful under Islamic law for Palestinians to sell land to Jews. They warned that the sale of land would pave the way for the loss of Jerusalem and the establishment of a Jewish state.
Details of this fatwa can be found in Bawadir al-Nawadir by Hakim al-Ummah Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. But the scholars’ warnings were ignored. The Jews offered double and triple the land price, and many Palestinians, tempted by money, sold their land despite the prohibition. The result is visible today: most of Palestine lies under Jewish occupation. The state of Israel was built upon that land, and the Palestinians became exiles in their own homeland.
This history offers a clear lesson, yet Pakistan appears to be repeating the same mistakes. Recent reports speak of a plan to create a “Christian state” on Pakistani soil, stretching from Khanewal to Sialkot. What many dismissed as a fantasy is taking shape on the ground. Thirty officially recognized Christian colonies already exist in the region, with new settlements emerging rapidly. At this pace, their number could reach the hundreds within months.
Observers note that the multinational corporations, joint ventures of Jewish and Christian investors, who were granted agricultural land under the 2002 decision are now linked to these developments. The combination of large-scale corporate leases and the emergence of purely Christian colonies across Punjab leaves little doubt that the groundwork for a Christian state within Pakistan is being laid.
Although the land was leased rather than sold, the government imposed no limits on acreage or lease duration. In practice, this makes little difference, as the long-term risk remains the same.
Pakistan already has a precedent for this. After the creation of Pakistan, the British governor of Punjab leased land along the Chenab River near Chiniot to the Qadiani community, who established the town of Rabwah. It was later renamed Chenab Nagar following demands from the Khatm-e-Nubuwwat movement. Officially, the land remains leased to the “President of the Ahmadiyya Association,” but in practice, it operates as an exclusive Qadiani enclave where Muslims may not reside. It functions as a state within a state, and despite public opposition, its special status remains intact.
In Pakistan, the military and intelligence agencies have long held the nation and its political institutions hostage. It is they who conceive and advance such plans, both domestic and foreign. The responsibility, therefore, rests with the Muslim people of Pakistan and all patriotic citizens to recognize this danger and act decisively to confront it.
Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam. Its people must never allow it to be sold to foreign interests or surrendered, by lease or by law, to a future not its own.
