Movements or revolutions?
The core ideology of movements is always people-centric, something which is missing in revolutions.
The writer is Manager Operations at Rozan, an Islamabad-based NGO
Revolutions aimed at destruction of prevalent systems, ultimately lead to bloodshed. As bloodshed of any manner should always be unacceptable, I am among those who prefer the path of initiating movements, instead of bringing about revolutions, if the aim is to change mindsets.
This change in mindset is possible only through the mobilisation of people who agree on a particular issue or thematic area. At a later stage, this could become a movement when a considerable number of people are on the same page with different ideas of carrying it forward.
Tracing the pages of history, one can find a lot of movements, which had their good and bad phases on their way towards effecting a larger change. This larger change comes through a process and processes are the lifeline for all social movements.
My preference for movements over revolutions is not because of any bias against any particular revolution. However, revolutions do tend to destroy everything on the surface. They aim at achieving their targets immediately. On the other hand, movements are not aimed at achieving their goals in the short term. Rather they aim towards their goals despite all hiccups and resistances faced along the way.
I have been questioned time and again about the effectiveness of my writings against corruption and social injustices. My answer has always been that everyone has a duty towards society. I do what society expects from me as a sensitive citizen but taking up arms is not the right way to eradicate evil from society.
This flexibility has always been there for those who are part of movements and is missing from revolutions, which at certain points in their struggle, turn violent and direct hatred towards a certain section of society. They tend to look at everything in black and white and do not consider any grey areas that might exist.
Movements give provision where one could work towards effecting a larger change in the minds of the people on any particular issue and putting dents in the system so that a change could emerge from within the system instead of imposing a new system that remains dysfunctional for years. Movements also challenge the norms and stereotypes of society.
My idea of writing a piece comparing movements and revolutions came in a recent discussion on Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Sufi Shah Inayat Hussein and the anti-dam movement in India. These movements have brought a certain level of change among the people in their particular timelines and posed a challenge to a large group of people although their initiators were themselves small in number. Their zeal was appreciable in that they remained committed to their aims over a long time period and did not give up when faced with resistance.
Maybe it is difficult to gauge the success of movements, such as the Khudai Khidmatgar movement founded by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, but its message is still prevalent. That is why Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is still remembered and his visionary idea of being non-violent is something which should be celebrated at every forum.
The movement of Sufi Shah Inayat Hussein enabled poor peasants to question the powerful. This movement was followed up by several other leaders, such as Hyder Bux Jatoi and my late father, Shakeel Pathan, who gave a voice to voiceless peasants, who were victims of bonded labour.
The core ideology of movements is always people-centric, something which is missing in revolutions since they aim to create a new state or policy even if it does not benefit a large number of people. Movements change the minds of people and enable them to start thinking for themselves.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 30th, 2013.
This change in mindset is possible only through the mobilisation of people who agree on a particular issue or thematic area. At a later stage, this could become a movement when a considerable number of people are on the same page with different ideas of carrying it forward.
Tracing the pages of history, one can find a lot of movements, which had their good and bad phases on their way towards effecting a larger change. This larger change comes through a process and processes are the lifeline for all social movements.
My preference for movements over revolutions is not because of any bias against any particular revolution. However, revolutions do tend to destroy everything on the surface. They aim at achieving their targets immediately. On the other hand, movements are not aimed at achieving their goals in the short term. Rather they aim towards their goals despite all hiccups and resistances faced along the way.
I have been questioned time and again about the effectiveness of my writings against corruption and social injustices. My answer has always been that everyone has a duty towards society. I do what society expects from me as a sensitive citizen but taking up arms is not the right way to eradicate evil from society.
This flexibility has always been there for those who are part of movements and is missing from revolutions, which at certain points in their struggle, turn violent and direct hatred towards a certain section of society. They tend to look at everything in black and white and do not consider any grey areas that might exist.
Movements give provision where one could work towards effecting a larger change in the minds of the people on any particular issue and putting dents in the system so that a change could emerge from within the system instead of imposing a new system that remains dysfunctional for years. Movements also challenge the norms and stereotypes of society.
My idea of writing a piece comparing movements and revolutions came in a recent discussion on Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Sufi Shah Inayat Hussein and the anti-dam movement in India. These movements have brought a certain level of change among the people in their particular timelines and posed a challenge to a large group of people although their initiators were themselves small in number. Their zeal was appreciable in that they remained committed to their aims over a long time period and did not give up when faced with resistance.
Maybe it is difficult to gauge the success of movements, such as the Khudai Khidmatgar movement founded by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, but its message is still prevalent. That is why Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is still remembered and his visionary idea of being non-violent is something which should be celebrated at every forum.
The movement of Sufi Shah Inayat Hussein enabled poor peasants to question the powerful. This movement was followed up by several other leaders, such as Hyder Bux Jatoi and my late father, Shakeel Pathan, who gave a voice to voiceless peasants, who were victims of bonded labour.
The core ideology of movements is always people-centric, something which is missing in revolutions since they aim to create a new state or policy even if it does not benefit a large number of people. Movements change the minds of people and enable them to start thinking for themselves.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 30th, 2013.