Do we really need a revolution – by Mustafa Kamal
Our living in a world full of tragedies is a universal fact. Social fabrics are shattered. The dissatisfaction of people with the functions of their respective governments has put them in a position to ask and preach for revolution. The term revolution has been framed as hanging political leaders and sacking governments through mob violence by various political leaders and writers in Pakistan. Who will lead such revolutions and what could be the repercussions are still ambiguous.
Revolutions have always been hijacked historically. Revolutions have always breed hatred, violence and sense of superiority among the suppressed, emotional and exploited revolutionaries. Once in power, these exploited revolutionaries shed more blood, kill more people, suppress their opponents with more brutal tract of force and turn to fascists gradually.
The recent Arab spring is an apt example of this. The so-called Arab Revolutionaries were such sick-minded that they even distorted the dead bodies of their opponents. Reports also revealed that the young brainwashed revolutionaries even sodomized the body of Qaddafi.
“The Muslim world in general and Pakistan in particular is not fit for revolution,” says Veteran journalist and intellectual Khalid Ahmad. “No one realizes that revolutions are pure destruction, at times rescued by an intellectual realization about where they went wrong”, he observes.
In the world of their fantasies, the revolutionaries are more concerned in suppressing their opponents instead of creating a stable environment leading to prosperity and peace based on humanistic values.
We are a society where self-congratulating has surpassed self-criticism. Primarily, such societies don’t need revolution, but evolution. Our futile efforts in hurrying for revolution will leave us with even more blood in streets, heap of bodies and chaos. Any urgent need to reform the society must never be revolutionary, rather evolutionary.
All we need is a little bit of sanity. Revolutions are best suited for Saudi Arabia and Libya.
The word revolution came to acquire a new political usage from the late eighteenth century. Prior to that, it referred to the circular or elliptical movement of the celestial bodies, more specifically, to the completion of such a rotation. In English history, for example, it did not refer to the civil wars and political upheavals associated with Oliver Cromwell; but to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the installation of a protestant monarch in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. It was only with the American and French revolutions of the late eighteenth century, that revolution began to signify an overhaul of a social and political system. Even here, the leaders active in the beginning appealed for a return to an order of things that had been sullied by despotic monarchs – they used nostalgic language, they sought a restoration. However, the war of independence and the storming of the Bastille launched a flow of events that overthrew the earlier usages, along with the despotism that was the immediate target. Revolution began its new semantic journey, into the political vocabulary of modern protest and the aspirations of the oppressed. It retains its geometric usage, as in the number of revolutions per minute of mechanical rotors, but in the political realm, it evokes not a circle but a straight line, a pathway to a freedom and a better life..
http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2012/08/closing-circle-article-on-revolution-in.html