Revolutions or signs of them are the reason for my article ; Revolution is the festival of the oppressed Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013, 7:16 IST | Agency: DNA Rajiv Dogra Groucho Marx once said, “I have principles! If you don’t like them, I have others.” Like Groucho, America seems to have a bagful of them as it goes around rearranging the world to its taste. There is nothing new or surprising if America whimsically declares in its travels: ‘Off with his head.’ Over the last half century it has surprised the citizens of some distant land or the other with a new Capo. But all through it has been careful to leave the West Europeans alone. Their citizens are not informed through the morning newspaper that they have a new leader. Call it favouritism, the limit of American reach, the need for allies or plain and simple double standard, the fact is that it has never tinkered with the West European systems. No wonder Henry Miller said, “We have two American flags always: one for the rich and one for the poor. When the rich fly it, it means that things are under control; when the poor fly it, it means danger, revolution and anarchy.” That must have been the reason for the American preference for short-cuts in much of the second part of the twentieth century. It courted, promoted and protected generals and dictators in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Latin America and Africa. It was easy for USA to deal with a single source of power and to manipulate him to its will. That’s how the logic went then. But it was as flawed as the desire of neocons in junior Bush’s Presidency to control the energy resources of the world by subjugating Saddam Hussein and the other inconvenient leaders of the Arab World. Since the war in Iraq was expensive, futile and ultimately dangerous for America, it opted for a new technique; that of the revolution. That way blood would not blot its uniforms. Moreover it had already had a fair degree of success through indirect interference in revolutions across Eastern Europe. There, the idea of plenty defeated the ideology of uniformity. Undoubtedly, the idea of a revolution is heroic. Anyone who has read Oriana Fallaci’s A Man cannot but agree that the account there of the resistance against the dictatorial colonels of Greece was awe inspiring. But so were many non-violent types of revolutions. The industrial revolution of the late 19th century and the information revolution now have both brought in profound changes. Equally pleasing was the counter revolution in arts to the industrial revolution; impressionism produced some great art. As Paul Gauguin remarked, “Art is either plagiarism or revolution.” There were changes and violent stirs in ancient times too, but let’s keep our focus on the near term. Here the variety is tremendous. India, of course, is in a class by itself; Naipaul labelled it as a land of million mutinies. Elsewhere, in the Sixties, we had the fashion revolution and the students’ revolt, the most famous being that in Paris. It was said that the Paris youth were revolting out of ennui because they were the rich kids. There is, of course, no denying the romance of the revolution but nor can we escape the harsh reality of its aftermath. It is exciting as long as it lasts. But when the crowds melt away and the police take account of who did what, the poor get caught and land up in jail. Tom Stoppard put it pithily, “Revolution is a trivial shift in the emphasis of suffering.” Still, there must be something to it that leads people to revolt. Perhaps, it is the sheer joy of doing something different as Germaine Greer said, “Revolution is the festival of the oppressed.” That may be so, and revolutions can be fun as Anna Hazare and his merry band almost proved. But why is America so interested in revolutions in distant lands? Why has it abandoned its earlier practice of coups and wars? The short answer may well be that coups brought in incompetent dictators, and wars are a huge drain on America and their results uncertain. Revolutions on the other hand are low-cost affairs. If they succeed, USA can gloat in secrecy. If they fail, it can deny any involvement. This approach has paid dividends in some cases. The one in Turkey is a work in progress, but the multi-hued revolutions in Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia and Egypt were more or less successful; at least to begin with. It was later that doubts began to be raised whether anything substantial was achieved through regime change. The more fundamental question that is being whispered is the one about double standards. Why is it that people of the developing world only are encouraged to protest and revolt — be it a sponsored protest of the kind against a much needed Kudankulam Nuclear power plant or the regime changers like that in Egypt? If the reason is misgovernance or corruption, then aren’t some of the western Governments equally culpable? Was Berlusconi any less guilty of ruining Italy and its economy than say Hosni Mubarak of Egypt? And why within the developing world are the people of the Gulf States not encouraged to revolt? These are difficult questions with uncomfortable truths. But the choice for people is clear: heroism during the revolution but prison thereafter. Insofar as the results of the revolution are concerned, the last word must be reserved for George Orwell who maintained, “No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer.” Karl Marx too might agree with that conclusion after the failure of communism in the eastern bloc. Whether America concurs with the futility of revolution is another matter.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 06:19:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015