As our political, social and economic situation is deteriorating and, as a result of it, common people are facing hardships in life, there is an urge to change the system in order to get rid of corruption and disorder. The idea to change by introducing reforms appeals no body. At this stage people talk of revolution. It is in the collective memory of people that how in history revolutions radically changed societies by eradicating old system and replacing it with a progressive one. The French, the Russian, and the Chinese revolutions become models to them. However, as Marx remarks in Eighteen Brumaire that man makes his own history but not according to his wishes, therefore, before thinking about revolution, we have to understand its meaning and concept historically.
The original meaning of revolution is to revolve in a circle. In ancient Greece, their political system revolved around kingship, oligarchy, and democracy. In this concept there is no change in basic structure. This suited the ruling classes who did not want any change in the system in order to retain their status intact. Rebellion in the medieval period was the mode to challenge existing government against the measures which were harmful or damaging to certain sections of society such as peasants, slaves or aristocracy. Members of royal family rebelled to claim the right of succession. Rebellions, generally did not want any basic change of social structure but to replace the government which could accept their demands.
In case of the Muslims, the medieval jurist Al Mawardi, in his book Al Ahkam al Sultaniya advised people to recognise usurpers and not to raise any voice against them. However, in spite of these legal bindings, rebellions occurred throughout history as a solution of problems. Resistance movements, on the other hand, made attempts at forcing government to alleviate their grievances such as the Diggers, and the Levelers in 17th centurys England pressed the government to grant them right of vote and to abolish the House of Lords, which was the seat of aristocracy. In India, during the colonial period, Moplas of South India, resisted against the taxes and demanded to abolish them.
The third mode of challenging the existing system was a war of independence. It was an armed struggle against the colonial powers who occupied a country. In 1857, the Indians fought against the English in an attempt to expel them from India. The Americans successfully struggled against the British and won their independence. Thomas Pen, the author of Common Sense who participated in this war and whose book inspired common people to fight for liberty, called it revolution. Since then, instead of war of independence, it became a revolution.
The revolution acquired a new meaning after the French Revolution in 1789. It changed not only political structure but replaced the social and cultural values and customs. The changes occurred as a result of violence. The revolutionary forces eliminated those elements which were obstacles to implement the new system. The same process was followed in the Russian and the Chinese Revolutions. As the concept of revolution is to change a society, historians point out two processes on the basis of historical evidence.
Firstly, when a society changes gradually and, secondly, when it turns upside down within a short span of time. Keeping this in view, historians argue that there was a Scientific Revolution which brought slow but solid changes in the outlook of people. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein changed the views about nature and the world. The invention of printing press widely disseminated knowledge which equipped people to understand their environment rationally. It was a victory of rationalism, over dogma.
Toynbee, a historian of the 18th century, called to the process of industrialisation a revolution because as a result of it, society shifted from feudalism to industry. It inaugurated a culture which was antithetical to feudalism. In most of the Asian and African countries, after the independence from colonialism there were no revolutions on the model of the French, the Russian and the Chinese.
On the contrary, there were military coupe detat. It is also known as Bonapartis, because Napoleon Bonaparte captured power in 1799 by overthrowing government with the help of army. He occupied the assembly hall and made legislators hostage and proclaimed himself as the First Consul, the supreme political authority, following the Roman tradition. Afterward, the pattern has changed. A military general declares to overthrow the government and the army occupies TV and radio stations. President and Prime Minister Houses are captured and they are imprisoned. After declaring emergency, all political parties are banned.
Trade unions and students bodies declared illegal. Media is advised to carry only censored news. To legitimise the coup, the past government is accused of corruption and mishandling the state affairs. When Ayub Khan imposed martial law, he called it a revolution. But, in fact, instead of a change, his rule destroyed the democratic institutions and traditions which consequently plunged the country into disorder. In a global world where capitalism is dominating, it is difficult for a single country to bring a revolution and survive.
Immediately, it is besieged by the capitalist powers and sanctions are imposed to strangulate it. This happened in the case of Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. Cuba is a hard nut to crack and survives in spite of all sanctions. Therefore, it is argued that to compete with global capitalism, there should be global revolution. For such an event, we have to wait.
The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.
