تحليل مقايسه‌اي نظام بهره‌برداري از زمين در كردستان و نظام بهره‌برداري گروهي (بنه) در دوره قبل از اصلاحات ارضي

A Comparative Analysis of the Iranian Land Tenure Systems in pre 1962 Land Reform; Kurdistan Tenure System versus Boneh

مقاله حاضر با نشان دادن اختلاف نظرها و مناقشه‌هاي موجود درباره محدوده جغرافيايي نظام بهره‌برداري گروهي (بنه) در ايران به طرح مسيله در باب ناشناخته ماندن نظام بهره‌برداري از زمين در كردستان مي‌پردازد. هدف پژوهش اين است كه با استفاده از اين رويكرد انتقادي، محدوده جغرافيايي بنه‌ها در ايران را با تاكيد بر نظام بهره‌برداري ارضي در كردستان به حوزه شناخت درآورد و با نظام بهره‌برداري گروهي و ويژگي‌هاي آن مقايسه كند. براي ارايه اين شناخت و مطالعه نظام بهره‌برداري ارضي در كردستان در دوره قبل از اصلاحات ارضي سال 1342 و تطبيق آن با نظام بهره‌برداري گروهي (بنه)، از روش‌هاي تركيبي تحقيق كيفي يعني روش تاريخي ـ تطبيقي استفاده شده است. علاوه بر اين، براي گردآوري داده‌ها از مطالعات اسنادي و مصاحبه‌هاي نيمه‌سازمان‌يافته از جمله داده‌هاي مربوط به روايت‌ها استفاده شده است. روايت‌هاي جمع‌آوري‌شده دسته‌بندي گرديده و سپس دو نوع نظام بهره‌برداري ارضي مذكور با هم مقايسه شده است. نتايج به دست آمده از مطالعات تطبيقي در پژوهش حاضر ضمن ايجاد شناخت از نظام بهره‌برداري ارضي در كردستان در دوره قبل از اصلاحات ارضي، نشان مي‌دهد كه بهره‌برداري مبتني بر مزارعه در ايران، مصاديق مختلفي دارد كه تحليل‌هاي ارايه‌شده از آن بر همه مصاديق آن صادق نيست.

In order to introduce a more thorough and different knowledge on land tenure system in Kurdistan of pre-land reform, the authors assumed a socio-historical approach with a reliance on compiling historical documents as narratives. Such narrative could contribute to rereading historical specificities of land tenure system in Kurdistan. This approach was first introduced by Hayden White in his ‘Content of the Form’ in which he argues about how historical events cannot be, in themselves, represented but first need to be taken out of their discursive reflections and be reconstructed as narratives. These narratives can, in turn, be treated as historical evidence and when they are put together they can help the researchers to extract a more realistic understanding and knowledge about past history than the discursive versions of describing historical phenomena. Comparative historical research has also been chosen as a research method. The qualitative data including the narratives were gathered by documentary studies and through semi-intensive and semi-structured field interviews with the traditional and experienced landlords. These data were first classified in accordance with such elements as what the landlords said about Mozare-eh system to exist in various parts of Kurdistan; how the crop was decided and how the landlord participated in cultivation of land and who contributed what to the production process And then these materials have been analyzed based on the question of whether they addressed the existence of two different types of tenure systems; i.e. Kurdistan type and Mozare-eh (Boneh). In the end the data were collected from 23 interviews with landlords. As the authors went further through selecting more landlords they figured out that the content of the information provided by the new interviews were becoming repetitive, and where they felt there was a kind of saturation and we decided to stop collecting further data from interviews. Results Describing the specificities of land tenure systems both in Iran, in general, and in Kurdistan in Particular, The authors realized that the sharecropping system used to be the prevalent and the dominant form of tenure system across Iran. However, and in contrast to Lambton’s claims and other scholars who claim Boneh was the dominant form in Kurdistan, The authors discovered a different type of sharecropping existed in Kurdistan that functioned based on crop sharing but the labor process was less torturous and more beneficial to the peasants. Conclusion The results indicated that land tenure system based on Mozare-eh (sharecropping) has had many variations across the country but various scholars have presented them in identical forms. We Hawever, the authors have indicated that these variations have not been addressed properly by existing literature. Probably Safinejad’s account of where and how Bonehs functioned is a more plausible reliable account than that of Farhadi and Lambton. Also it is worth mentioning that absentee landlordism never occurred in Kurdistand as it did in areas where Bonehs were dominant. Accordingly extraction of surplus product did not take shape as it did in Boneh-dominated areas. This means class formation in Boneh-dominated areas followed the rules that were formed based on absentee landlordism. For example, the numbers of classes in Boneh dominated areas were higher than the number of classes that the authors came to know existing in Kurdistan. Middle men and solicitors were close to nonexistent in this province. Having considered such characteristics, this paper provides a more realistic account of socio-historic characteristics surrounding land tenure system in Iran. It was not a feudal istic type now of production, but it was an Asian one. It simply developed out of necessities of a patrimonial system that was inherited from Achaemenid era but was reconstructed based on Islamic rules after the 642 BC.