Imagine Vladamir Lenin being approached by the Russian Tsar's intelligence chief, asking him to postpone his revolutionary activities for a day or a week because Moscow would be teeming with foreign dignitaries to attend a gala hosted by the monarch. How would Lenin have responded? I think he would have ordered the execution of the Intelligence chief's messenger or would have shot himself twice before agreeing to the postponement. Then, imagine Imam Khomeini living in exile in Paris, and there he was approached by the Shah's intelligence chief asking him to stop sending recorded audio messages into Iran as it was feared it would cause turmoil in Tehran amidst a visit by a foreign dignitary. How would Khomeini have responded?
Before answering that question, let's consider Khomeini's state of mind by recalling that during an interview, he was reminded by the Western journalist interviewing him that he had just received news that the Iranian intelligence had killed his son. Despite the insistence of the Western journalists, Khomeini refused to postpone the interview and informed the journalists that he would now prepare to send another son of his to Iran to participate in the struggle against the Shah.
Both Lenin and Khomeini were revolutionary leaders. They were not ordinary human beings. They were monsters of history who were produced by history—a history of their respective people and society filled with extreme repression by cruel monarchies. The repression they faced in their respective societies was not limited to a few months or a few years, it was repression spread over decades, rather centuries of monarchic rule in the Iranian and Russian societies. These monsters of history, in turn, founded even more repressive states which devoured millions of people in their respective societies.
Two weeks ago, jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan was approached by Pakistani intelligence indirectly through an emissary requesting him to postpone his planned protest rally on the outskirts of Islamabad because of the simultaneous protests by a religious group and an international cricket match in the city. Imran Khan, who had never allowed any opportunity to slip where he pretended to be a revolutionary leader, readily agreed. Later he even told journalists that the "Establishment" (remember, 'Establishment' is a word coined by pro-military analysts and ISPR to hide the repeated use of the word military when talking about our military leadership's involvement in intrigues and political machinations) has promised to help him hold a protest rally on September 8. As usual, the so-called Establishment went back on its promises, and this made our revolutionary jailed leader complain that the Establishment had deceived him, and he would never again talk with them.
Why does our revolutionary leader often describe the military and its various arms as the 'Establishment' when this word or term is part of an age-old press advisory issued to editors of newspapers and other media outlets that their news products should not repeatedly use the words like the military, ISI or MI while talking about Pakistani politics.
Why do Imran Khan and his party maintain revolutionary pretensions? Simply because revolutionary cocktails brew well in Pakistani society
However, my point is that Imran Khan is not Vladamir Lenin or Imam Khomeini—he is a political leader of a political party engaged in politics in a parliamentary democracy. He and his ilk engage in electoral politics, hold rallies and processions as they protest, both inside and outside the Parliament; they carry out campaigns, and hold press conferences. They are not a revolutionary party, and they don't engage in a revolutionary struggle. Yet, they never stop pretending—or at least conveying this impression to their constituents—that they are engaged in some kind of revolutionary struggle against the forces of evil or reactionary political forces.
The real problem is the rhetoric embraced by Imran Khan and his party leaders and the social media campaigns his digital warriors carry out on a daily basis. The social media campaigns especially paint Imran Khan as a revolutionary leader engaged in a revolutionary struggle against evils, including the Pakistan state and military. Political opponents also get honourable mentions. Their campaign sounds as if the revolutionary Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is engaged in a life-and-death struggle to overthrow the junta and bring about a revolutionary change in society. And yet, the August postponement of the PTI rally at the behest of the Pakistani Establishment is a clear reflection of the special relations that Punjab-centric parties like the PTI and PML-N enjoy with the military and its intelligence arms. Lenin and Khomeini, however, were not treated this way by the respective state machinery of Russia and Iran.
For the Russian Tsarist state and the Shah of Iran, Lenin and Khomeini were outcasts, enemies or demons which had to be physically exorcised one way or the other. Imran Khan, or for that matter, Nawaz Sharif, is and was not an outcast in this way. For example, Nawaz Sharif found himself on the wrong side of the then-military leaders when he dared to act independently on running the foreign policy towards India. The fact that General Bajwa helped Nawaz Sharif go to London while he was serving a lengthy jail sentence in Pakistan was enough to prove that whatever may happen, the military or some factions of it, are always ready to cut a deal with Punjab-centric leaders—one is out the other is in just like a game of musical chairs. For Punjab-centric leaders, the rules are different—Imran Khan would continue to act recklessly even after being ousted from power just because of the support he garnered from certain factions of the military Establishment—and therefore all these backdoor deals prove that when Punjab-centric leaders in Pakistani politics try to act like Vladamir Lenin or Imam Khomeini, be sure that it is a clear-cut hoax. They are in a well-defined opportunistic relationship with the state machinery, and their revolutionary pretensions and rhetoric are meant to fool their gullible constituencies.
Why do Imran Khan and his party maintain revolutionary pretensions? Simply because revolutionary cocktails brew well in Pakistani society. Protests have become a way of life in our society. Pakistani people, who are deeply disenchanted with the system, are not finding a way out. Economic hardships and the palpability of social and economic inequalities are part of the everyday experience for the common man. This political system and the social, political and economic inequalities it spews are common knowledge for Pakistani people. Yet they are not even getting the crumbs. This system does not even ensure subsistence for ordinary people. The people are so frustrated that they are ready to become cannon fodders for the cause of opportunists like Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif. Their opportunism is obvious from the fact that none of these leaders include in their programmes the provisions to do something about social and economic inequalities. Their whole political and economic agenda is restricted to announcing subsidies for their constituencies. How unfairly Pakistan's ruling classes capture the state and its resources—a fact which could be described as a legalised form of corruption. Yet, not a word has come out of Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif about how artificial classes of entrepreneurs and big businesspeople are created by provisioning them with state resources.
If the poor and downtrodden can become cannon fodders of your political cause, they can, as easily, also become cannon fodders for your opponents' political cause when you are in the government
Democracy, or any political system in Pakistan could not work until and unless Pakistan's political class or a new political party resolves the problem of social and economic inequalities and how state and public resources are doled out to create new political constituencies for popular leaders.
My basic point is that revolutionary pretensions and rhetoric—something which does not suit parliamentary democracy—create false hopes and expectations among the masses. If the poor and downtrodden can become cannon fodders of your political cause, they can, as easily, also become cannon fodders for your opponents' political cause when you are in the government. Lenin and Khomeini were no ordinary human beings; as I have already said, they were monsters of history who devoured the children of their revolution and large segments of society. I am sure if Imran Khan is confronted with a revolutionary situation, like the one that existed in Russia in 1917 and in Iran in 1979, it would most probably eviscerate all of his desires. And God forbid Pakistan as a state won't survive; we as a society are to experience violence that comes with a truly revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation does not always spawn a stable society. Sometimes it leads to anarchy and chaos.
My advice for Imran Khan: stop hallucinating, focus on parliamentary politics, and find a way out of jail by using your old contacts within what you label as 'Establishment'.