By Noman Wazir.
Revolution comes through evolutionary ways, some says. They say that if the ground is not prepared for the revolution then the situation will be just like in France, where people brought revolution under the banner of Liberty, equality, fraternity and people sovereignty, however on the contrast, got the Robespierre. Furthermore, they argue that Afghanistan also faced the same dilemma, when a group tried to bring radical changes in the form of Saur Revolution, then the unprepared society unfortunately crumbled under its weight.
I don’t buy their argument, because if a ‘Nation’ wants to bring change then mere preparing grounds will not bear the desired fruition. The reason is the oppressive force would have a state machinery to prepare conducive environment through propaganda for its ruling. On the contrary, the opposing force would have no organized propaganda machinery and will be tried to suppress as well through the machinery of state. Therefore, with each passing day the oppressive force will further strengthen and the opposing group will be more weakened.
The revolution of Afghanistan quoted as an example was actually a tug of war among the elite backed by the common folks. However, it didn’t last long owing to the interference from the neighboring states. The neighbors found their way to penetrate their darks desires through making alliances with the native and destroyed it from within. The revolution didn’t die its own death as they claim; rather it was killed by the vicious desires of its neighbors.
The story of French revolution was no different at all. The leaders used the people sentiments to make their way to the power corridor. And when they reached there, then they forgot the principles on which they founded their rule and try to consolidate it through reversing the same principles. The liberty was maligned by the rulers as much that there remained no difference between the oppressive and the opposing force. Nonetheless, in French revolution the monarchy was overthrown and the neighboring kingdom/principalities were threatened by this development, therefore, they tried utmost to flop the revolution.
If studied thoroughly those two revolutions then one may also deduce that in both the revolutions masses were swayed by the slogans of the revolutionaries and they were not properly trained for the revolution. However, this argument could not stand the critical inquiry because most of the people are living their lives for their own sake. They are only spectators in the game of throne; moreover all the people cannot be trained in a common mould. They tend to differ and this difference of opinion will persist so far as the world tends to exist.
The question which should be asked here is that why the revolutions are being resisted within society, despite the fact that few are benefitting from the statuesque. The answer is the vested interests of the oppressive force and the ignorance of the opposing group. To elaborate this point we must dig deeper into the matter.
There are three groups in every society. One is the oppressive group and its collaborators. The collaborators are just accruing benefit from the system and they are the ones whom propel the mindset of the passivity among the people. The second group is comprised of those people who are busy to get their livelihood. Whatever comes to them they consider it their fait accompli. The third group is against the illegality in the guise of legality. But they are also not doing anything on ground rather disoriented and disconcerted in their efforts.
The most interesting fact about the oppressive and the group in opposition is that they are very less in numbers as compared to the common folks. The point I want to make is that the struggle for power is not within the society, but a particular portion of it, is involved. Yet they determined the fate of the entire society. Here the question which might arise in your minds that in spite of the oppression of the oppressive force on the entire society, the opposing force would have won the battle so far. Why is it so?
The answer is two pronged. The common folks are given the impression that state (which is actually a group) is so powerful that it can do or undo anything; however, it is not as such. For example in schools ten or maximum twenty teachers are controlling the hundreds of students. They beat them and they cannot even complain about it. If only 20 students among them realized their power then they can beat the hell out of them and they can rule over the school with impunity.
Moreover, the oppressive lot is not seen on the ground rather they use their collaborators for their agendas. Therefore the opposing force might come under the impression that one has to fight both of them. Henceforth, they renounce the idea of head on collision and ‘try to prepare the ground’. However, the situation is not like that at all. As earlier mentioned that the collaborators are accruing benefits from the oppressive force, they will fight to an extent to please their masters but never at the expense of their lives. As the history has reproduced that whenever the king was overthrown, the same lot would gather around the new king to accrue benefits.
To cut the matter short, the only thing which is thwarting the revolution within a given society, is the indecisiveness of the opposing group. It is not the oppressive force or the common folks, that is resisting the revolution but the dithering of the opposing group.
The writer is a socio-political analyst from Fata. He can be reached at email@example.com