A Leaderless Wave of Resistance
Imran Khan has called on the people of Pakistan to protest in a “do or die” scenario, framing it as a decisive moment for the nation’s future with no room for retreat or compromise.
Eventually, a leaderless wave of resistance will emerge in Pakistan, fueled by the injustices of imprisonment and the disillusionment with failed leadership.
Those unlawfully controlling the country and the people should be concerned. For the fascist regime the protest can spell the last few days before the ante is up. For the people, if they fail to organize into a massive mass, expect Khan to see adverse daylight and for the people, eventually they will have to fight through higher tides without Khan.
Disillusionment and the People’s Resistance
The people’s disillusionment from the thoughts of compromised PTI leaders in the KP province marks the protest as the start of a decentralized movement beyond party structures. It has consequences.
In this context, a leaderless resistance can move in a faction of protesters on diverse targets and can be defeated when thinned out. Also, the psychological definition of protest means there is absence of fear among the protesters as in a larger mass, has unguided consequences.
Without a trusted leadership structure, sustaining momentum and ensuring coordination can be difficult. However, this protest movement has clear objectives that ensure its effectiveness.
Success of a Leaderless Protest
Historically, protests without leadership go through stages. In cases where direct protests are stifled, supporters resort to nonviolent methods such as boycotts, strikes, or symbolic acts of defiance to keep the movement alive. Examples, the Salt March and Boycotts (India, 1930s); Montgomery Bus boycott to the United States; Poland’s Solidarity Movement strikes of 1980s and last but not the least, the Hong Kong protest of 1990, against the Chinese extradition bill were intentionally leaderless to prevent easy suppression.
Imprisonment has a net benefit to a movement. Gandhi’s imprisonment often sparked widespread protests, strikes, and acts of civil disobedience. These protest outcomes helped sustain the momentum for independence and delegitimized the British rule, culminating in India’s independence in 1947.
Mandela’s imprisonment became a rallying point for anti-apartheid movements worldwide. The African National Congress (ANC) used his image as a symbol of resistance. The outcome was a sustained international pressure, sanctions, and internal protests led to Mandela’s release.
Martin L. King was jailed several times during the Civil Rights Movement, including during the famous Birmingham campaign. His arrests often galvanized supporters and drew national attention. The outcome was a movement that succeeded in achieving landmark legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Success of such movements depends on several factors, such as unity, public support, and state response. A study of 323 nonviolent and violent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan in “Why Civil Resistance Works” offers the following insights:
Nonviolent movements were twice as likely to succeed as violent ones. Fifty percent (50%) of nonviolent movements succeeded in achieving their objectives, compared to 26% for violent movements.
Mass participation is a key determinant. Movements involving at least 3.5% of a population almost always succeed.
The strategy of the State is clear. It will commit to violence and spreading fear to stop the protest from approaching an overwhelming critical mass from a do or die call.
To install fear, the State’s reaction plays a critical role. A heavy-handed approach (e.g., arrests, crackdowns) might be the salient tool to intensify fear, but it may outrage the public and swell the ranks of protesters.
Other Movements vs A Unique Movement in Pakistan
In the case of Pakistan, reading into examples like Tiananmen Square, Morsi of Egypt and Anti-Putin Protests (2012), are not applicable to Pakistan.
Also, the revolution against the Shah of Iran does not apply to Pakistan either, where Shah was soft on the resistance group which allowed the movement to grow into a revolution. IK has fully backed the resistance revolution. Once the revolutionaries begin protest on November 24, 2024, it is expected to reach the critical mass.
Since this protest differs significantly from the previously mentioned examples, its likelihood of success from its uniqueness in my view exceeds 50%. The key differentiators are the momentous percent support of the country and IK enjoying the support of a strange and rambunctious bunch–about twenty percent of the Pashtun population in KP can halt the life of the Corps Commander in the KP province over a mere text message.
Jolting the KP province’s Corps Commander has not happened thus far and to that matter ending Muneer’s rule after February 8, 2024, general election because the KP leadership in my view has on numerous occasions failed to come across as an earnest participant to Khan’s cause.
The situation in Pakistan in the context of the State violence resembles South Africa. The State is expected to commit to Police violence. As was the Case in South Africa– Sharpeville 1:15 PM Massacre, (1960), was a high cost of the fight for justice, which galvanized the anti-apartheid movement domestically and internationally.
I predict a key psychological shift between the state and the people. Where the State has all to lose at all times and the psychological turning point for the people will be a point where they have nothing to lose.
Psychological Shift
The psychological shift can also appear when the State’s security personnel commit to massacre, where at some point they will no longer follow orders to assault the people. At that very moment the resistance of the 24th will be emboldened.
Place your bets. In the absence of PTI’s leadership, I am pondering, not if, but when will the crowd grab Asim Muneer from his collar or impose an advance on Adyala jail.
Khan benefiting from a majority (approximately 98 percent support), PTI stakeholders in this movement doesn’t have to make room for negotiations, but Khan has.
Negotiations?
The reasons for negotiation can likely be three-old. One, politically correct thing to do. Two, IK doesn’t have full confidence in his fearing populace to withstand the onslaught of the State’s brutality. Two, the necessity of negotiations is to avoid prolonged conflict or the collapse of the warring parties.
Inquisitively, in a do or die call, negotiation is oxymoronic. The inexperienced Khan has time on his side. The slow learning Khan will yet learn from his do or die call.
Negotiations during Pinochet’s Regime, (Chile 1988–1990), led to a phased approach because of the plebiscite results favoring the opposition and Pinochet’s weaning popularity. Instead of a complete dismantling, a gradual transition to democracy was agreed upon. Asim Muneer is not interested in negotiations.
Though wishful thinking, should Muneer agree to the four or so demands of Khan, IK will launch a second phase. This time the dismantling of the regime, an ultimate objective.
Muneer is expected not to agree to IK’s demands; he logically cannot because he is akin to a Zionist and he is heading a dynasty and not an army. Dynasties violate all principles and constitutional framework to save their dynasty.
Expect tactical concessions from Muneer aimed at calming the protestors, but make no mistake—under no circumstances will Khan be permitted to run as Prime Minister. He is entirely unacceptable to the military establishment.
Failed Negotiations
Khan will force protest, and expect Muneer to play out all cards similar to that unfolded in the Iran (1979 Revolution). In which case, Muneer would have created a stalemate, as was the case in Iran’s revolution. Negotiations were deemed unnecessary and revolutionaries demanded an outright confrontation.
The outcome, Iran’s military fractured, with defections and disbandment, leading to the Islamic Republic.
In the case of the Pakistan Army, it is expected to fracture at the top, but the median would hold strong on the basis of the moral divide.
From People’s Strength in Numbers, Phoenix will Rise
The period of gallows would begin. It is expected to start from Gen. Ashfaq Kayani. Fair trials will commence. Outcome, the generals will be stoned to death. Its modern equivalent in Pakistan is Article Six (6).
Expect all to be laid in the ‘Tombs of Article 6,’ a graveyard for the hundred or so satin worshippers, for future visitors to see. People will come to urinate on these tombs. Imagine visitors emptying their bladders on the tombs of generals (Bajwa, Muneer, Sahir and others.) Evidence, the Mir graves in Bangladesh.
Should masses turn out for protest, it will mark the end of the Army’s savagery and the reign of terror. Asim Muneer better grow a tail to place between his legs as Khan’s phased strategy kicks into action.
Time Is Not Infinite. If it was, Hope Would Die
Time, though neutral, becomes a travesty when individuals with such glaring deficiencies in character distort their potential for justice and growth. Defunct characters—those who betray country and values like empathy or accountability—transform time into a stage for neglect and harm, particularly when mothers, the nurturers of life, are undermined. It is not time itself, but the misuse of its moments, that creates tragedy and hope.
Conclusion
In conclusion, time, the impartial arbiter, it moves silently and without haste will serve justice—I stand convinced.
The lyrics they play with force,
Read, immense a structure they desire
In defense of the defenseless
Sight they gather not,
In torrence stream their pouring zeal,
They rise from silence for freedom’s flame.
Bio: Mian Hameed is the author of MANIPULATION OF THE MIND: Our Children and Our Policy at Peril. He is a student of the U.S. and South Asia foreign policy. My articles do not present the conventional thoughts of the mainstream media. To read my work, click the Home link below.