For quite a while now, there has been some talk of a bloody revolution in Pakistan from a variety of leaders, including Mian Shahbaz Sharif, Altaf Hussain, Pir Pagara, Mumtaz Bhutto and social activists such as Abdul Sattar Edhi and Ansary Burny because of the prevalent injustices, poverty, hunger, misery and the widening gulf between the poor and the rich. All these leaders, in one way or the other, do hold the pulse of the people.
If such a revolution does take place at all, the question is what would it look like? Probably, it will be an approximation of the French Revolution of July 1789. Why? Because, like today’s Pakistan, the pre-revolution France was also ridden with privilege, inequality and injustice. Over 65 percent of the land was owned by a microscopic minority comprising the nobility and the clergy, out of a total population of 28 million. Failure on the part of King Louis XVI to tackle hunger and poverty precipitated the predicament into a revolution. The situation can be understood from the fact that during 1785-89, due to the unstoppable hike in the price of goods, the cost of living had risen by 62 percent. Worse, the price of bread had shot by 88 percent in the year of revolution. Consequently, just bread, accounted for almost half of the budget of the common man. No wonder there were ‘bread riots’.
This scenario caused misery across the whole of France, which, in turn generated discontent and anger against the rulers of the day, who lacked the will and the imagination to find a solution. A change was due, which is often always provided by the leaders. So far, in Pakistan, only Abdul Sattar Edhi has committed for a revolutionary change. While collecting alms outside Quaid’s mausoleum, the iconic philanthrop is on the record to have said, “I am not a politician but I am in favor of a violent, bloody revolution to bring about drastic changes in Pakistan. I am a supporter of a violent revolution to end social injustices from the society” as “people are dying of hunger but the rulers are busy somewhere else.” What about the other Pakistani leaders mentioned above? Well, they have only fired the warning salvos but have not pledged to lead the revolution.
As yet, Pakistan has only Edhi but France was more fortunate to have a galaxy of leaders who were committed to the cause of revolution. One such leader was Mirabeau. When the representatives of the underprivileged gathered to give France a revolutionary system, the King sent his forces to disperse them. The week-kneed might have run to save their lives but Mirabeau had the guts to say to the troops: “Tell your master that we are here by the will of the people; and will not disperse before the threat of bayonets.”
Struggle for the public cause can be Herculean as it brings one in direct conflict with the powerful politicians and the state authorities – all of which have stakes in the continuance of the rotten ongoing system. Mirabeau had thought through as to how he would deal with such challenges in his revolutionary sojourn when he declared that he had undertaken a career in public service without courting any political party or without worshipping the idol of the hour and that he would employ no weapon but reason and truth, and would recognise no authority but his conscience.
Another figure that towered as a leading voice was of Marat, a journalist, whose newspaper’s motto was “Let us tax the rich to subsidise the poor” because he strongly felt that it was the social responsibility of the rich to tax their superfluities in order to relieve the poor of the burden of the necessities of life. He was strongly supported by a revolutionary barrister Georges Danton, who set up the “Society of the friends of the rights of men and citizens” with the objective to make it a rallying point for the poor to organise demonstrations for their rights as well as to furnish legal protection against official injustices to its members at the cost of just a penny, a month.
Yet another figure that is recognised as the embodiment of this revolution was Maximillian Robespierre, who was known as ‘the incorruptible’ by his friends and foes as he remained untainted by bribery and graft. A firm believer in the ideas of Rousseau and Montesquieu, he believed in setting up a republic of ‘virtue’.
It is important to understand his ideas about the ‘virtuous’ and the ‘evil’. He had seen how unscrupulously the rich had filled their pockets from war profits while the revolutionary government fought the battles of survival against the European armies bent upon the revival of the Old Order in France. Even the role of the rising French bourgeoisie was damning because it tried to use the revolutionary upheaval as a mean to supplant the ousted nobility and clergy. On the whole, the rich had shown that they only cared for themselves and gave a damn to the critical fate of the republic and the plight of the toiling masses.
On the other hand, the poor had sacrificed their personal interests at the altar of the greater national interest. Robespierre could easily conclude as to who had proved ‘virtuous’ or ‘evil’ to the cause of the revolution, and so rewarded the poor by the redistribution of land and property in their favor. Being an undisputed ascetic all through his life, he envisioned a state that would be ruled by selfless elected men who would be free from the trappings of greed or mere pelf of the office.
Thanks to such altruistic leaders, France was successful in setting up a revolutionary republic based on the great ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity for posterity. However, those who talk of a revolution in Pakistan should not forget that revolutions are not caused just by the opposition of the mutually exclusive interests but by the tug-of-war of opposite interests within one body.
The writer is an academic and journalist. He can be reached at qizilbash2000@yahoo.com