also very strange, he carves an idol with his own hands and then starts worshipping that idol as a god. The same is true of narratives. Man himself creates the narrative and then he himself gets caught in the trap of the narrative he has created and becomes a slave to that narrative.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Minister of Law and Education, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, mentioned the contradiction in the narrative in an interview with me and said that the real reason for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s downfall was his narrative, “We will fight India for a thousand years.” Pirzada believed that the PPP had won the 1970 elections because of this narrative. This narrative was not realistic, it was just an emotional slogan. When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became the Prime Minister, he had to become a pragmatist and a realist. Thousands of Pakistanis were in Indian jails, hundreds of acres of Pakistani territory was under Indian control. In such a situation, Bhutto had to go against his emotional narrative and sign the Simla Agreement, which also released Pakistani prisoners and liberate Pakistan’s territory. But this agreement made the contradiction between Bhutto’s words and actions clear, and according to Hafeez Pirzada, this contradiction was the one that ultimately led to Bhutto’s downfall. The right wing and the powerful forces never forgave Bhutto for the Simla Agreement.

Look at today’s situation. Today, there is a war of narratives again. The authorities are trying to create a narrative of hope and prosperity, while Imran Khan is beating the drums of a charming and captivating narrative of change and revolution. Just as Bhutto’s narrative of war for a thousand years was emotional, similarly, Imran Khan’s narrative of revolution is also emotional. It has nothing to do with realism and pragmatism. Imran Khan, riding the air horse of emotions, is facing a difficult phase. If he follows the path of revolution, there are thorns on every side, if he makes a deal, he has to face a contradiction like Bhutto. Bhutto remained in power for 5 years even after making the Simla Agreement. Imran Khan and his party believe that the deal will damage their popularity. In fact, Imran Khan and his extremist supporters have become slaves to their extremist narrative. Bhutto, acting realistically, trampled his own narrative, he did not become a slave to populism. Imran Khan has been enslaved by none other than his own self-created narrative. His YouTube supporters will not let him out of jail because they want to bring about a revolution through war and violence at all costs, which does not seem remotely possible in terms of pragmatism and realism.

The tragedy of the Muslim League-Nawaz is also the clear contradiction between its past narrative and present actions. By making an anti-establishment narrative of respecting the vote, when you become a supporter of the same establishment without giving any reasonable reason, then the voters are unable to digest this contradictory narrative. The same thing happened with the Noon party that on the one hand an anti-establishment air fort was built and then it itself demolished this fort and sat in the government. The main mistake was a long silence and not being able to explain a reasonable reason for the alliance with its army. Despite the Simla Agreement, Bhutto gave the impression of winning over India in the Simla Agreement to maintain his popularity. It was repeatedly said that Bhutto released 90,000 prisoners of war through the Simla talks and took back thousands of acres of land. Therefore, the narrative of defeating India at the negotiating table instead of war was carved out, which was fictional and wrong, but due to this narrative and reasonable reason, Bhutto’s popularity could not fall. Nawaz Sharif could have maintained his popularity by adopting a similar reasonable and popular narrative. He could have made the statement that “the establishment he was against has changed,” but he never expressed his opinion on the subject, nor did he consider it appropriate to explain his changing narrative to his voters.

The consequences of the slavery of narratives are very strange and unfortunate. Hitler’s narrative of German supremacy and invincibility took him to the peak of popularity. In the last referendum, the German people voted for him with 99% of the votes. When Hitler started conquering Europe, his narrative became more popular. Hitler’s supporters also emerged in the enemy country, Britain. But when the German armies started to be defeated one after another, Hitler’s madness broke and he himself could not bear the defeat of his narrative and committed suicide in his bunker along with his beloved Eva Braun. The Pakistan People’s Party used to rule in Central Punjab. Its narrative after 1977 was based on anti-establishment and Bhutto’s charisma, then it changed and became anti-Nawaz Sharif. When the PPP increased its ties with the establishment, the voters tolerated this shock, but as soon as Nawaz Sharif and Benazir signed the Charter of Democracy, the anti-Nawaz League voters could not bear the contradiction of the narrative and now the public vote bank has disappeared in Central Punjab except for the old Jiyals.

The most interesting story is that of the ANP narrative. This movement, which started as a Khudai Khidmat Gar (God’s Servant), later adopted a narrative of Pakhtun nationalism. Two prominent issues in this narrative were opposition to the construction of the Kalabagh Dam and changing the name of the NWFP. A happy accident happened that both these demands of the ANP were accepted. The name of the province was changed and the Kalabagh Dam fell into disrepair. Apparently, these successes should have given the ANP a political monopoly, but the opposite happened, that is, the slogans lost their appeal. Although the ANP leadership made the most sacrifices against terrorism, the slavery of the old narrative isolated it and now its vote bank has dwindled.

The more imaginative, emotional or extremist the narratives are, the more extremist and terrifying their outcome is. The current leadership of the PTI is quite realistic, but it is also held hostage by YouTubers sitting abroad. The state cannot be overthrown by force and violence. The powerful have the constitutional and legal justification to use force, while political activists only have the tactic of making sacrifices. Gandhi, Hasrat Mohani or Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan used to shame governments by silently resisting in jail. This path is also open to the PTI, violence gives rise to more violence, sacrifices and non-violence weaken the opponents from within. There are both paths, but for politics, the other path is dangerous except for peaceful resistance.