The colour is red...

Revolution is a very strong word, but unfortunately sometimes it is used in a very free context. This word, in itself, is a whole expression, which means demolition and reconstruction, and mind you this demolition is never partial, and the post-revolution structure is always diametrically different from the structure, which it replaces.

Revolution is a thought, which attains real features, when the reasons for this thought are given space, by total indifference and senselessness of the existing system or structure. People nowadays tend to interchange revolution with evolution, not even understanding the consequences of such misinterpretations. 

This world has seen many revolutions, over the course of thousands of years, but for me there were only two real revolutions. The first one was the French revolution and the second one was the Cuban revolution of 1958. The forms of both these revolutions were different, but there was a common denominator. In both of the cases the existing ruling classes were so much detached from the general public and people’s problems that people had no other option then to revolt.

In the French case, the aristocracy was so much busy in ruling-class problems that they totally forgot that, when the people would starve, and would be left with no options and opportunities, they would rise. What was the result? Common people took their pitch forks and dispatched the French aristocracy to hell. Yes it was bloody, but, hey, who says that revolutions can be of any other colour than red? People did not come out of their homes in France for ministerial posts or state appointments. They came out to take, what they were deprived of. And what were they deprived of? Just of mere normal human livelihood. 

The Cuban revolution had a different form, but the core cause was the same. There was this class of wealthy rulers, who had everything, when people did not even have guarantee of a minimum livelihood. I am not talking about decent life, although every human being deserves it. The Cuban revolution boiled to its extreme in and out of Cuba, but once it arrived on the island, there was no running away for the same indifferent and senseless ruling class. 

Revolutions need revolutionaries, and who are these revolutionaries? Are these some people, who want to snatch away the right to govern? Probably not. Che Guevara was a revolutionary. He was honest to his cause and if you are not honest to your cause, you are not a revolutionary, you are just a politician. Che did not settle for a ministerial post, in post-revolution Cuba. Once he felt that the people of Cuba were freed from the evil clutches of the ruling class, he refused to become the ruling class, and continued on his quest to empower the powerless.

Of course, you would all be thinking that I have scarce knowledge of history if I did not mention the Russian revolution of 1917, the Turkish revolution or the Iranian revolution. But the reason, why I never consider these revolutions to be true is that they were just mere changes of faces. 

Although if we look at the Russian revolution, we see all the same ingredients in the making, like deprivation of people, in-existence of justice and lack of human attributes, among the ruling class. The Russian monarchy was busy fighting the war of 1906 and the First World War. The aristocrats were busy collecting Faberge’s eggs, when the common man had a very hard time making ends meet. The Russian aristocrats were feeding caviar to their dogs, when ordinary citizens of the empire could not find a piece of bread to feed their children. The aristocracy was busy resolving feuds among themselves, instead of taking care of the citizens of the empire. People had become nothing more than livestock for the rulers. 

The only unfortunate thing was that this ripe revolution, became a tool of snatching-the-rule for a wrong group of people. The monarchy was replaced with socialism and one ruling class gave way to another ruling class. Common man in Russia, who was worth, less than an imperial horse, became free labourer in the Soviet Union. My point here is not to discuss the merits or demerits of any given system. I uphold lots of positive ingredients of socialism, but Soviet Socialism was nothing more than a new experimental system of subjugation.

In case of Russia, the person or the group of people, who used the already cooking sentiment to their advantage, were the real problem. The people did not come out against the Aristocrats, just because they loved socialism. They came out for the same reasons, for which the French had come out, but their pitch forks were remotely controlled by those, who then enjoyed the fruits of rule for the next 72 years.

In case of Iran, people did not come out in Khomeini’s favour, and to ask for some so-called Islamic revolution. People came out in the streets against poverty, deprivation and indifference of the rulers and the aristocracy. The Shah of Iran used to order lunch from Paris, nearly every day and that lunch would be flown into Tehran, fresh off the stove, at a time, when ordinary Iranian citizens struggled to make ends meet. Iran was selling oil, but the revenues were accumulating in few pockets only. People of Iran did not even have any clue of the wealth that their country was generating.

Under these circumstances, when the winds of change were gushing in the streets of Tehran, a religious cleric, forced into exile by the Shah’s regime, felt the taste of the ready meal and returned to Iran to take over the otherwise people’s movement and grab the rule. Let me assure you, Iranians did not come out for rule of Islam or for the “Imamat” of Khomeini. They fell prey to opportunistic politics of the revolutionaries and to the detachment of the aristocracy.

At this point of time in Pakistan, the required ingredients for a revolution are all present. There is a ruling class, which lives a diametrically different life from the rest of the population. This ruling class comprises of less than 2% of the population and 98% citizens of Pakistan are struggling to make ends meet. The rulers have private zoos and jets, whereas the common man thinks twice before buying a kilogram of vegetables.

The ruling class is busy resolving feuds among themselves. One politician is fighting against the other, but not for the people. All that the rulers care about is, how to strengthen their control over the resources and how to snatch these resources out of each other’s hands, because unfortunately the resources are already in the hands of the rulers.

There is no justice available for the common man. A common Pakistani has to pay, to launch a police complaint, against some atrocity. A common man’s life is worth less than the price of a thoroughbred. The rulers are using state institutions, like the police, to carry out illegal activities, like murdering opponents, suppressing any cry for human and civil rights etc.

The system of government is utterly corrupt. The electoral system is defunct. The civil servants or bureaucracy is under total command and those, who dare refuse to act upon illegitimate orders are brutally handled. The rulers or the ruling class make no effort to hide or conceal their wrong doings, and bribery is an accepted reality. 

The ruling class’s inhumanity is strengthened by members of the so-called civil society. This support of the members of the civil society is not an overnight phenomenon. Gradually the rulers have been working on rotting the basis of a civilized society. In a country where teachers, at all levels, are appointed on the basis of approach, but not merit, where journalists do not inform, but advance doctrines, where lawyers do not fight cases, but try to make money or to gain favours with the rulers, and where judges are appointed on the basis of loyalty, what good can be expected?

A Pakistani sportsman, @Salman Ahmad (in 2014), won a body building title in an international competition and when he returned home, he was welcomed with indifference and humiliation. The proud constituents of the mass media, who spend hours after hours every day discussing political scenarios, asked him to pay money to get some coverage and recognition in his own country. And mind you this is not the only occurrence of detachment from reality.

Unfortunately in Pakistan the ripe crop of revolution will most probably be harvested by a religious cleric, who has sensed the smell of the revolution and is ready to snatch the right to rule. This cleric is also from among the same class. He is no different from the others. But unfortunately the standing crop might fall into wrong hands.

The people in Pakistan should not let anyone control their pitch forks. They should take a good grip at their pitch forks, and they should deny the right to rule to anyone from among the existing 2%. The system in Pakistan should not be replaced with some other system. It should be demolished, and then let the people redesign the structure. If we want some real change we should look at Iceland, as a modern model of people controlled change. 

The detachment of the ruling class, from reality, is the most important ingredient of revolution, and unfortunately in Pakistan the rulers are totally detached from the public and the realities of life. They are busy fighting about the appointment of a former Chief Justice’s incumbent son as the Deputy Director of a lucrative organization, but they don’t even know the price of a kilogram of potatoes in any given city of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan.