No Revolution for Pakistan

Source: Seattle Times

Do you recall the Arab Spring? It only happened within a period of last five years and even though it has largely died down, it has told us something very interesting about seemingly politically dormant populations. People can rise against oppressive governments, as they have so many times in history.

However, such instances among the population of the Indian subcontinent are very few in history, especially under a foreign colonial rule. Of course, there have been great exceptions with some great local warriors and insurgent empires like the Marathas rising against far larger forces. Resistance has not been absent. But largely, you will find little resistance until the failed War of Independence against the British in 1857, ignited for the perfectly wrong reasons, and finally the Swaraj movement under the unusual leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

Pakistan, separated from its Indian motherland, has been a breeding ground for political chaos. One so political. Pakistan, the Western part to be precise, has seen great political turmoil in its 70 years but no revolution. Of course, the Eastern Pakistan, which let’s face it, had no connection whatsoever to its eastern and clearly more prejudiced wing, had nothing to do with it anyway. Bengal had been at the forefront of the independence movement and with a very predominantly progressive political culture, it was only a matter of time that it would part ways with the regression of the socially conservative and theocratic Western Pakistan made up of Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, and immigrants from Delhi, Gujarat, Hyderabad, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar.

Pakistan immediately fell under oligarchical bureaucratic dictatorship. Forget the old battered revolutionaries locked away. That romance is over. For so much micropolitical storms in its teacup, the beverage of democracy was never eventually brewed. The founding fathers, who stayed true to most and betrayed in the eyes of a few, strangled the very idea by injecting theocracy in the framework of the Constitution. A discriminatory document that no self-respecting republican could stand behind. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah apparently died too soon and too weak to have been a decisive factor over it, ironically and inadvertently becoming responsible for a theocracy for a man who embodied secular lifestyle and values.

With the context of this horrifying background and ruled by a draconian army that is apparently the best fit for the mix, the people of Pakistan live disconnected, indifferent lives. They acknowledge, but choose to ignore, the evils of their society. They recognize the need to hang people in public squares but never take any action. They frequently kill women for honor but never resist when their freedom is trampled on.

To add insult to injury, Pakistani not-so-private propaganda channels are loaded with state-backed faux revolutionaries to provoke people to throw out any remnants of elected office in the country, but never see any movement among the hibernating masses. Compare that to the Tunisian democratic revolution, then a lot more has happened in Pakistan to hurt the public sentiment to warrant one.

From the assassination of Benazir Bhutto to May 12 killings and Model Town massacre and from Panama Verdict and Judicial coups to allegedly systematic murder and rape of little children, nothing has inspired such a movement even though supposedly building public anger and frustration.

People continue to move on. So despite all the apparent injustice, widespread abuse, and intolerable discrimination and torture, people are opting to stay put. They have accepted their condition as a natural order, a will of God, and do not want to disturb the imperfect equilibrium that at least keeps life going.

But can you really blame them? They, the illiterate and naive people, have seen what revolution brings to those who seek it. Misery, persecution, and a whole new level of slavery and dangers. Nobody wants to give up their relative freedoms away, even those under a mildly draconian regime of thugs. There is still a lot to lose than to gain perhaps from such a misadventure. The loss of the individual is not the loss of society.

Nevertheless, you are compelled to ask when is it going to be enough. How many rapes and murders of the daughters of the poor and abandoned will it take for the people to be outraged enough? How many plots of land will be taken away from the poor and helpless before the people say no more? You wonder how much is it going to take.

And what will that outrage precisely be? A civil outrage fueling vigils? Is that enough? And if it isn’t what did the rioters in London, the arsonists in Missouri, and the miscreants in Islamabad achieve? Did they achieve revolution? Most certainly not. But were able to make life miserable for other common people like them, property owners or not. That same order of life those common people go to great lengths to preserve. Nobody really likes a radical, until he becomes socially acceptable.

When do you push the boundaries far enough to take a riot to revolution? To take political slogans to civil war? Why did the Egyptians feel compelled to overthrow Mobarek and why did they give up at Al-Sisi? Why did the Persians feel content with ousting the Shah and not the Ayatollah? Why settle with one oppressor, one abuser, and one tyrant and not the other? Are these people and this land worth sacrificing your life for? And if you wait for enough people to join in order to jump, do they ever get to?

These are the questions we are not willing to ponder, let alone even begin to think to answer. At least not now. We must get on with our lives because you only live once.

There is no revolution for Pakistan.

Advertisements

Pakistani Idiot of the Year 2014: Imran Khan

Source: Quora/Amir Qureshi

Source: Quora/Amir Qureshi

Who else but the pied piper leading our children to the mirage of Islamic socialism and the dark and hopeless abyss of a lifestyle of constant whining would be the candidate qualifying for 2014?

He is guilty of putting his personal politics above the national interest and acting like a kindergarten kid and whining like a sore loser and turning almost his entire following to act like him.

His actions for mobilizing the youth and for initiating the debate for electoral reform is heroic, but his ways of pursuing those have been terrible.

He is, among several other populist politicians throughout the history of Pakistan, guilty of converting the masses into a justice-demanding holier-than-though moralist lynch mob, in many ways, like the electronic media they so despise.

He is also guilty of letting his party workers get drawn into the violent storming of state buildings by following the lead of the violent mob of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek on September 1.

Probably looking to get out of the “sit in” (actually series of concert-like campaign party conventions) for a while, he ends the movement abruptly succumbing to public and media pressure, only to lose favor, temporarily, among many in the party. But he only has himself to blame for that.

Though his honesty is exemplary. He shoots himself in the foot by revealing the intelligence memo warning about an attack such as the Peshawar school massacre as early as August 28. But at the same time, puts the military in the spot, so rather heroic again. It really takes an idiot to make a hero, you know.

But he was not alone in this unending race for idiocy. Many others were close behind.

How could we forget a mention of Imam TUQ (AS) aka Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri, who returned to his theatrics to strengthen the faith of an already convinced population of how evil democracy is. Only he knew what he was doing, apparently.

He also deserves a lot of credit for leading his mob into storming the Parliament and the PTV headquarters, and making the nation cry for the use of tear gas on the innocent band of criminals he was leading.

He also deserves appreciation for perfectly demonstrating his vision of the Islamic Welfare State by setting up the “sit-in camp village” outside the Parliament and hiring protesters for welfare stipend. Finally we know what it is going to be like.

People such as Pervez Musharraf, Zaid Hamid, General Hamid Gul and Hafiz Saeed also deserve their due mention for making sure that the TTP does not get its due credit for the Peshawar massacre.

An insulting mention for Maulana Abdul Aziz, who idiotically turned everyone against himself by issuing death threats to the protesters who started with a rather idiotic reason, though for the right cause. He now has anti-terrorism warrant issued against his name and must be immediately arrested.

Another insulting mention for Aamir Liaquat Hussain and his panel of clerics for declaring an already state-declared enemy religious community as the enemy of the state. But for that we also have to revisit the masons of our pillars of faith, because that is pretty much what the faith has become.

Further special mentions for Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed for encouraging the politics of revolutionary violence from Imran Khan’s platform, and especially for the former JI emir Syed Munnawar Hassan, who had his wish coming true of Qital-Fisabeelillah in the Peshawar massacre.

And of course, our Interior Minister Chaudhary Nisar for thinking too hard to make the world a better and safer place. Something that he is obviously incapable of doing.

But in the end, no one comes down so spectacularly, and so pompously as the Mighty Khan. Someone who is so obstinate, so delusional, so self-obsessed, it reminds you of his ideal leaders. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Islamic Socialism and the Islamic Welfare State have the perfect heir in him.

The Pakistani idiot of the year has to be Imran Khan.

Read about the Pakistani idiot from the last year here.

 

The Politics of Entertainment

Source: Dawn

Source: Dawn

It might sound a bit insulting, though it really should not be, but the politics of populism and perpetual revolution is very much the politics of entertainment. With or without the bloodshed.

Now that is what gets people going for an otherwise very boring and very repulsive subject matter. But it really is no laughing matter, is it? This really is about raising your voice against oppression.

A lot of people do that actually, in a very serious and effective manner. They even end up paying for it with their lives.

A great example has been the Arab Spring and the continuous protests in Egypt, the Ukrainian protests, the Venezuelan protests, the Bahrain protests and protests against the Shah. Another recent one has been the Iranian opposition protests, in which people were killed by the state police.

A seemingly similar campaign but nowhere near to the Iranian moderate protests has that been of the PTI protests against the results of the last elections. This is because the Iranians protested the oppressing regime of the Ruhollahs, who would rule with an iron fist regardless of elections, because a lot of people think Iran is a democracy.

However, in this case the PTI is protesting against their perceived primary oppressors, the PML-N federal government, while their main grievance of unfair elections in a few constituencies should actually be addressed to the Election Commission that it apparently just rejected.

Oh, and speaking of oppression, I never saw people bothering to leave their homes to protest against the military and civil bureaucracy who have been effectively oppressing them for six decades. But sorry for the mandatory red herring…

However, as Imran Khan very aptly put it and it really explains it all pretty perfectly. He and the youth were getting bored by the break in the revolutionary movement. A complete year after the elections. It was exciting to see them back in action.

And the protest rally disbursed after demanding the formation of a new election commission, which is an indirect way of saying that they don’t really accept the results of the previous one, but still accept the results and keep the seats.

However, while the formation of a new election commission would only be encouraging, but doesn’t that happen every time?

And don’t even get me started on the “neutral” caretaker administrations.

But there is some progress after the protest, alright. But who cares in the end anyway.

The people were not out there to protest against oppression.

The people wanted a good night out, which they cannot otherwise get in a dull town.

The people wanted, well, entertainment.

You See What Happens…

Source: cannabisculture.com

Everyone talks about changing the world.

Everybody talks about a revolution.

Everybody talks about telling everyone what they do.

Everybody talks about clearing up all the confusion.

Some even try to do all that.

Whether they fail or not is another story.

But those who do face the grim fate of  John Lennon.

Apart from the conspiracy theories, John Lennon’s murder, which is one of the many murders like these, is a loud and clear message to anyone who tries to become a Working Class Hero or tries to challenge the world establishment and the governments and whoever talks about giving the people their rights, freedom of speech and the basic right to live or the usual revolutionary crap.  Yeah, it’s that bad.

So if you are thinking about becoming a revolutionary, consider John Lennon’s murder a death threat to you.

You have been warned.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Writing Your Own Ill Fate

I have written earlier about Moammer Gaddafi pulling out of Libya too late and also a bit about the mistakes he had made. Well, it turns out he did not have enough friends to accept him and apart from that, he never really wanted to pull out of Libya anyway. Therefore, he lurked around his hometown of Sirte and was brutally murdered, or executed if you will, after public humiliation on October 20, 2011, which went on till his funeral in an unknown place. Maybe that’s how he thought he would have died honorably. But I have my doubts.

This brings to light even more lessons. One thing is for certain. Gaddafi was the architect of his own ill fate and if you ask me, it was he who chose his way of death. Now consider this.

 It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

                                                                      – Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

                                                                         from The Prince

While you may consider Machiavelli evil, there is almost a consensus on his unmatched understanding of politics, as writers and political advisers in history go. Unfortunately, not many dictators are able to keep all that wisdom in mind. From a report in The Time Magazine, the Chinese version of this quote, though said a lot earlier, from Laozi was the favorite of Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf, the then new front line ally of the United States, in its July 22, 2002 issue.

When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists.

Next best is a leader who is loved.

Next, one who is feared.

The worst is one who is despised.

                                                                                        – Laozi (c. 604 BC)

                                                                                           From Tao Te Ching

Musharraf had had this quote inscribed on a plaque adorning his residency in Rawalpindi, according to the report.

There is a good reason why Machiavelli and Laozi said this. These dictators may have these quotes inscribed on a plaque or may sleep with a copy of The Prince underneath their pillows, but they often forget the wisdom when the moment of truth arrives. A relatively smart dictator like Musharraf did well as far as studying political retreat strategy is concerned but I don’t think Gaddafi really had any concept about it whatsoever, not that I am underestimating his abilities. The moment your people stop fearing you, you cease to be a dictator. This goes to show just how delusional Gaddafi was. As I have maintained before, he was probably the bravest of the international leaders, but yet he was delusional to the extent of being suicidal.

Source: Al Jazeera English (english.aljazeera.net)

The longer he stayed in Libya, the greater became his chances of being lynched to death by a crowd. And that is precisely what happened. He had the option of giving himself up to the Western powers had he been interested in living for long. He also had the option of shooting himself before arrest, as we are told that Adolf Hitler did, but he chose not to do that either. As I wrote before, his perfect diagnosis was being stuck in the middle of being scared of losing his throne and being scared of losing his life. His son Mo’tassem Billah Gaddafi was also murdered by the rebels. Looking at their end, his other son Saif-ul-Islam has announced that he would be ready to face the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Maybe a smart move.

As for the rebels, while some people would have disapproved of his murder like that, but expecting anything else would be a little too idealistic and unrealistic. That is swift “justice”, if you will. Who has the time for trials for crimes against humanity? They knew he was guilty and instant justice was served, the revolutionary style. The rebels celebrated and the photographs of the killed Gaddafi, which I bet would have been far more gruesome than those of the dead Osama Ben Laden, were making headlines in the mainstream media around the globe.

The Libyans were celebrating, as they should. The rebels were ecstatic. President Obama said that Gaddafi’s death was a warning for the iron-fist Arab dictators, probably passing a hint to Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad. Surprisingly, in fact not surprisingly, some publications around the world, which otherwise have a pretty “liberal” record, published celebratory headlines on Gaddafi’s death. Still, there are a few who have been disturbed by the images of the incident. While it was a moment to celebrate, it was also encouragement to people around the world to kill the leaders they do not like once they get their hands on them. Not that anything is wrong with that. It is justice after all. But many of them would be upset and outraged if many other of the world leaders, who have committed similar or even worse crimes against humanity than the Libyan dictator, are brought to a similar end.

I wonder if he we have more bloody coups and revolutions waiting to happen. And more dictators dying a bloody death. As I said in my earlier posts, if you are upset at it, think of the Romanovs.

Smart dictators around the world still have a choice to make.

Repeat Gaddafi’s mistakes and you would be writing your own ill fate.

Lessons From Gaddafi

Source: The Daily Telegraph

So the reign of the old Colonel, Moammer Gaddafi, has come to an end. Finally.

All things must pass away, they say. A man, for example. Nothing lasts forever. But perhaps these taken for granted facts were something the illustrious dictator of Libya forgot. I would not go into the political echoes of the event, but just human lessons you could extract out of it and what the historian could tell you about it. Still politics is as related to the matter as the eye is related to sight.

Everyone has a loathing for Gaddafi for being brutal and cold-hearted and cruel for bombing his very own people. But at the same time, I could also imagine what would be going through his mind and in his heart. A falling dictator is the most desperate man in the world. So while I despised him for being cruel to his own people who paid for his luxuries, I also had a bit of sympathy for him and his family. Like I had for Hosni Mobarek of Egypt and his family.

I don’t want them to flourish on the luxuries they do not deserve but I want them to live. For those who want them dead because they were responsible for the death of their loved ones is a different story. I can’t fully understand death for justice so I would leave the subject to those who do and be thankful as long as I am not the one facing the shooting squad. But I still think their families are innocent and deserve to live.

Establishing this point, let us move forward. Royalty. which need not be hereditary and let me integrate it to the modern times despite the general despise of monarchies and the popularity of republics, bears the burden of the sins attached to its name. This is what the history tells us. Think of the Romanovs, murdered in cold blood in some oblivious house and picture the young Alexei and Anastasia and their other sisters dying, simply because they were the children of Czar Nicholas II. Cruel from a human viewpoint, but just the right thing to do maybe from the Bolshevik perspective. Maybe it was necessary because an Anastasia appeared in Germany several years later.

In the modern times, families of government figures may be allowed to live in peace if they remain quiet, just like the son of the exiled Shah of Iran. Gaddafi had a choice of fleeing Libya much earlier than he did. He could have read the writing on the wall. Even a child watching TV could. But maybe Gaddafi wasn’t watching TV or he would have known. Instead, he was hoping to cling on to the throne he had been clinging on to for nearly four decades. It is was too dear to him, maybe more than his family, which is why he lost his sons and grandsons in the battle for it.

It is not a question of right and wrong or good and evil here. It is a question of being a victor or a loser. The rebels were backed by the NATO and Gaddafi could not have expected to resist them for long, so in the end his rule was limited to his palace in Tripoli. So he retreated too late. I was keenly waiting for the news of his escape to another country, but the more it was delayed, the more I became convinced of his delusions, erratic thought process and messed up priorities. He was stuck somewhere in the middle of being a man who never wanted to give up and who was too afraid to die.

A spectator and a historian would never be able to make up their minds about whether to hate the man or whether to have respect for him. Most of them would comfortably eliminate the latter option, as you cannot really have a lot of respect, if at all, for a man who cannot really make up his mind between his family and his throne, and not sure of what was more prized to him. But maybe anyone else in his place would be torn apart in the same dilemma. Being as resourceful as he was, it is easy to say that he could have easily found his way to a safe country with his family.

For a moment, I thought Gaddafi was fighting for his pride and his glory. That he would fight to the last bullet in the barrel and the last drop of blood in his veins. The kind of dictators who would rather commit suicide than be overpowered by the enemy and captured and humiliated, like Adolf Hitler of the Third Reich or the great warrior kings of Rajputana. But no, he even wasn’t that type. A confused man or one who was caught in the whirlwind of circumstances. Who can tell but himself. But we can see where he was wrong and what he could have done to minimize the damage. The throne was already lost and there was no other way to it.

Had family been the first priority of Gaddafi, he could have left Libya with them way too early than when he really did. I heard the news that his daughter gave birth to a child when he reached with his family in Algeria. This is what the difference can mean. Life and death. I guess one of his sons died in the action, fighting against the rebels, or in a NATO bombing. Maybe they did not have to do that. Maybe he did not have to be so brutal to the public. Maybe he could have had enough foresight to realize that his end was near. He could have run away way before the Bastille was overrun. He did just that but he also assigned the task of guarding it to his loved ones, if that is the right term to use here.

Not all dictators give their power away so violently. There was Pervez Musharraf of  Pakistan, for example. Not all are too smart, recall the way Saddam Hussein ended up. Maybe he didn’t have many friends. A huge mistake for a dictator. Gaddafi was made to give up his power just like every other dictator, but he seemed more like a child separated from his toy, if you ignore the innocence part. But still you would expect him to foresee it.

I think it could be a completely seperate and dedicated area of research, how dictators should escape their impending doom. Survival can make man do crazy things and the things that Gaddafi did would go down in the history as among the craziest. So if you are a dictator and love your family a bit more than Gaddafi did or love your throne a bit less and if you are fighting against the NATO, it is better to make an early, safe and pleasant escape to a country like Algeria if Saudi Arabia refuses to accept your entry.

It remains to be seen if he will be tried for crimes against humanity. That also depends on how many friends you have, and how many you run out of. I just happened to glance past a New York Times photo feature based on the family pictures of Gaddafi found in his palace, which now lay in ruins. I have no idea why the American publication felt the need to publish it, maybe to emphasize the humiliation faced by the man and his family, but I leave you with it.

In the end, you have to come to the point when you need to decide whether you are a dictator or a human.