Mahvish Ahmad says about the use of the word “revolution” by Tahirul Qadiri and his crowd “perhaps they had an unrevolutionary definition of revolution” (An English daily, January 19, 2013, p.3.). They are not the only ones. Pakistanis are generally relaxed about the use of words. Or maybe they give new meanings to old revolutionary terms of European origin, thus enriching Marxist terminology.
One recalls a big board opposite the speaker’s platform in a public meeting in Lahore in the early 70s. It said in big letters “Mashriq Surkh Hai”. This slogan is a translation from Chinese and was used during the Cultural Revolution in polemics against the Soviet Union. What relevance it had to a PPP meeting was never explained.
Similarly, many billboards on the streets of Karachi these days say “surkh salam” to the PPP leaders. Now, this was a formal greeting in communications between communist militants, who were fighting “to overthrow all existing social conditions” and replace them with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Why should a solid class-party of the waderas employ it is a mystery? Or maybe it just indicates our habit, as a nation, of using language loosely.
This tendency of divorcing words from their meanings was widespread in the Arab world over a long period, specially under Nasserism.
Nasser played a significant role in the overthrow of the old-style colonialism in the Arab world. He also helped to promote modern bourgeois economy by carrying out effective land reforms. However, the important point is that, though he talked incessantly of the people, he never allowed them any autonomous role in politics. His Arab nationalist “movement” was a network of conspiracies instigating younger and dissatisfied officers in the various Arab armies to make putsches in the name of Arab nationalism. However, these various colonels and majors while issuing their “communiqués no, one”, failed to recognise a real revolution that took place in their neighbourhood, that of Iran.
Indeed, the service of making the foreign intervention in Iran, which seems to be the necessary fate of every revolution, was performed here by the “revolutionary Iraq” of Saddam. Backed by various Arab States, “revolutionary” and otherwise, it inflicted immeasurable damage upon Iran, though the bourgeois nature of its revolution survived.
But an important by-effect of this revolution was that the Arab armies ceased yielding heavy crops of putschist “revolutionaries”.
We too produced a “revolution” under a Field Marshal, but did not pursue the fashion after fighting a war against India. However, we did throw up four more strutting rulers, but less pretentious, though somewhat more silly.
The Field Marshal was at least bourgeois and decreed land reforms. But, apparently, the balance of classes in Pakistan did not permit him to eliminate the feudal power entirely.
As a result, Z. A. Bhutto was able to reverse even his mild land reforms in important respects. In order to remove the possibility of any future challenge to his class, Bhutto also destroyed our nascent industrial bourgeoisie. This may have closed the doors of progress upon Pakistan. But it removed any threat to feudal power. “Tout est bien qui finit bien.” By the way, Bhutto also claimed that his ascent to power was a revolution. But, mercifully, he compared it with Hitler’s attaining power not with the October Revolution.
It may be noted that we speak of revolution, but do not use the explosive terminology associated with it e.g. classes, class-conflict, relations of production etc. In fact, some of our governments of the 1950s explicitly proclaimed their determination to eliminate class consciousness.
One imagines he cannot leave the subject without paying attention to our use of the term “long march.” The Chinese communists’ manoeuvre known by that name was a great outflanking movement. By bringing the Red Army into collision with the Japanese forces, it put Chiang on the defensive politically. So he was obliged to take up the fight against the Japanese seriously. Moreover, the Red Army’s manoeuvre was expensive. Of the 300,000, who set out from the south, only about 30,000 reached Sian.
We talk of change. Here the question is “who-whom”. Power going from whom to whom? Those who talk of change without defining it, are against change. One supposes as the country industrialises and consequently becomes more civilised, its language will also transit from babble to communication.

The writer is a retired ambassador. Email: abul_f@hotmail.com