Saturday, September 26, 2009

इशरत जहां के कातिलों को सजा दो और भारत में अबतक हुए सभी मूठभेड़ों की जांच कराई जाए.

हम सभी को मालूम है न्यायविद तमांग ने अपनी जांच रिपोर्ट में यह साफ़ कह दिया है कि इशरत का कोई सम्बन्ध पाकिस्तानी आतंकियों से नहीं है, इसलिए यह हम सभी का फ़र्ज़ बनता है कि हम इशरत जहां के कातिलों को सजा देने के लिए आवाज़ उठाएं। यही नहीं हमें हिन्दुस्तान में हुए तमाम मूठभेड़ों की न्यायिक जांच के लिए भी आवाज़ बुलंद करनी चाहिए।
यह याद रखने की जरूरत है कि झूठे मूठभेड़ों में मार दिए जाने वालों में वैसे लोग भी हैं जो जनता के तरफ से इमानदारी से आवाज़ उठाने वाले हैं। क्रांतिकारियों के साथ भी आज से नहीं वर्षों से ऐसा हो रहा है। इस मामले में तो पूरा देश ही मूठभेड़ों का देश बनता जा रहा है। जब किसी झूठे मूठभेड़ पर से परदा उठाता है तभी जा कर आम आदमी को यह मालूम हो पाटा है कि हमारे देश में पुलिस व्यवस्था किस तरह से काम कराती है और यह कितनी घोर जनविरोधी है। इसलिए आपका और हम सबका यह फ़र्ज़ बनता है कि हम अपने और दूसरों के जनवाद के लिए लड़ें। एकमात्र तभी हम अपने देश को हिटलरशाही से बचा सकते हैं।

Thursday, September 3, 2009

"अतुलनीय" भारत - जहाँ हर चौथा आदमी भूखा है !

पिछले विधानसभा चुनाव में बहुमत हासिल कर दोबारा सत्ता पर काबिज होने वाले मध्‍य प्रदेश के भाजपाई मुख्यमन्त्री शिवराज सिंह चौहान और उनके प्रदेश की झोली में कुछ और तमगे आ गिरे हैं। एक गैर सरकारी संगठन की रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक इस वर्ष मई के महीने के बाद से मध्‍य प्रदेश के कम से कम चार जिलों में छह वर्ष से कम उम्र के 450 बच्चों की कुपोषण से मौत हो गई है। राष्ट्रीय पारिवारिक स्वास्थ्य सर्वेक्षण-तीन की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार म.प्र. में कुपोषण 54 प्रतिशत से बढ़कर 60 प्रतिशत हो गया है जिसका मतलब यह है कि मप्र के बच्चे भारत के सबसे कुपोषित बच्चे बन गए हैं। लेकिन बात यहीं खत्म नहीं हो जाती। शिशु मृत्यु दर के मामले मे भी मध्‍य प्रदेश भारत का अव्वल राज्य है जहाँ ज़िन्दा पैदा होने वाले हर 1000 बच्चों में से 72 की पैदा होते ही मौत हो जाती है (नमूना पंजीकरण सर्वेक्षण 2007-08)। यह गौरव हासिल करने वाला म.प्र. अकेला राज्य नहीं है! राष्ट्रीय राजधानी दिल्ली उसे कड़ी टक्कर दे रही है। वैसे तो पूरे देश के स्तर पर ''अतुलनीय भारत'' की यही दशा है। स्थिति कितनी भयावह है इसे स्पष्ट करने के लिए चन्द एक ऑंकड़े ही पर्याप्त होंगे। विश्व स्वास्थ्य संगठन के मुताबिक भारत के पाँच वर्ष से कम उम्र के 38 फीसदी बच्चों की लम्बाई सामान्य से बहुत कम है, 15 फीसदी बच्चे अपनी लम्बाई के लिहाज से बहुत दुबले हैं, और 43 फीसदी (लगभग आधे) बच्चों का वजन सामान्य से बहुत कम है। पर्यावरणविद डा. वन्दना शिवा द्वारा हाल ही में जारी एक रिपोर्ट से पता चलता है कि आज देश के हर चौथे आदमी को भरपेट भोजन मयस्सर नहीं हो पा रहा है। कुछ ही साल पहले जारी अर्जुन सेनगुप्ता कमेटी की रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक लगभग 77 प्रतिशत भारतीय 20 रुपया रोज से कम गुजारा करते हैं। उसके बाद से महँगाई जिस रफ्तार से बढ़ी है उसे देखते हुए सहज ही अन्दाजा लगा जा सकता है कि आज की स्थिति और भी भयानक हो चुकी होगी। एक तरफ सरकार मुद्रास्फीति की दर के ऋणात्मक हो जाने की बात कर रही है वहीं दूसरी तरफ पिछले 4-5 सालों में अधिकतर खाद्य पदार्थों की कीमतों में 50 से 100 प्रतिशत का इजाफा हो चुका है। जैसे-जैसे खेती में कारपोरेट सेक्टर की पैठ बढ़ती जा रही है और लोगों की आश्यकताओं के अनुरूप नहीं बल्कि बाज़ार को ध्‍यान में रखकर खेती करने का चलन बढ़ रहा है, वैसे-वैसे बुनियादी खाद्य पदार्थों की कीमतें बढ़ती जा रही हैं और खाद्य असुरक्षा की स्थिति पैदा हो गयी है। इसका अर्थ यह कदापि नहीं है कि देश में अन्न की कमी है। अनियंत्रित, अवैज्ञानिक ढंग से खेती करने, किसानों को सरकारी मदद के कमोबेश पूर्ण अभाव और खेती को जुआ बना देने की तमाम कोशिशों के बावजूद विशेषज्ञों का मानना है कि हजारों टन अनाज गोदामों में पड़ा सड़ जाता है और चूहों द्वारा हज़म कर लिया जाता है। इसके अलावा बड़े पैमाने पर अनाज अवैध तरीकों से विदेशों में बेचा जाता है। एक तरफ खेती योग्य जमीन का दूसरे कामों के लिए इस्तेमाल किया जा रहा है तो दूसरी तरफ अन्न उगाने के बजाय किसानों को नगदी फसलें उगाने का प्रलोभन भी दिया जा रहा है। देश का एक बहुत बड़ा भूभाग पहले से ही सूखे से जूझ रहा था वहीं इस साल मानसून कम होने के कारण अन्न उत्पादन और भी कम होने की आशंका है। हमारी सुजलाम सुफलाम शस्य श्यामलम धरती अंग्रेज़ शासकों द्वारा निर्मित अकालों के बाद अब देशी हुक्मरानों द्वारा निर्मित अकाल जैसी स्थिति का सामना कर रही है। आज दुनिया में सबसे ज्यादा भूखे लोग भारत में रहते हैं। देश में लगभग साढ़े इक्कीस करोड़ लोगों को भरपेट भोजन नसीब नहीं हो रहा है। इसके अलावा नीचे की एक भारी आबादी ऐसी है जिसका पेट तो किसी न किसी प्रकार भर जाता है मगर उनके भोजन से पर्याप्त पोषण नहीं मिल पाता। यही वह आबादी है जो फैक्टरियों-कारखानों और खेतों में सबसे खराब परिस्थितियों में सबसे मेहनत वाले काम करती है और झुग्गी-बस्तियों में और कूड़े के ढेर और सड़कों-नालों के किनारे जिन्दगी बसर करती है। कहने की जरूरत नहीं कि भूख, कुपोषण, संक्रामक रोगों, अन्य बीमारियों और काम की अमानवीय स्थितियों के कारण और साथ ही दवा-इलाज के अभाव के कारण इस वर्ग के अधिकतर लोग समय से ही पहले ही दम तोड़ देते हैं। पर्याप्त पोषण की कमी के कारण भारत के लगभग 6 करोड़ बच्चों का वज़न सामान्य से कम है। सुनकर सदमा लग सकता है कि अफ्रीका के कई पिछड़े देशों की हालत भी यहाँ से बेहतर है! दुनिया के कुल कुपोषित बच्चों की एक तिहाई संख्या भारतीय बच्चों की है। देश की 50 प्रतिशत महिलाओं और 80 प्रतिशत बच्चों में खून की कमी है। डा. वन्दना शिवा का कहना है कि आर्थिक सुधारों ने खाद्य सुरक्षा को अत्यधिक प्रभावित किया है। कारपोरेट खिलाड़ियों के प्रभाव वाली गैर वहनीय कृषि को सरकार बढ़ावा दे रही है जबकि इससे छोटे किसान तबाह हो रहे हैं। उनका कहना हे कि छोटे किसान बड़े-बड़े फार्मों की अपेक्षा अधिक अन्न की पैदावार करते हैं और यदि वे तबाह होते हैं तो वे भुखमरी की कगार पर आ जाएंगे और देश भी भूखा रहेगा। गाँवों में रहने वाली देश की भारी आबादी का एक बड़ा हिस्सा आज तबाही की कगार पर खड़ा है। पूँजी के तर्क से समझा जा सकता है कि पूँजीवाद में छोटे किसानों की तबाही अनिवार्य है। उदारीकरण की नीतियों ने इसमें और तेजी ला दी है। वहीं दूसरी तरफ यह भी सच है कि खेती के सहारे गरीब किसान अपना निर्वाह नहीं कर सकता। जमीन के छोटे-छोटे टुकड़ों पर खेती करने वालों की संख्या करोड़ों में है जो कहने को जमीन के मालिक हैं लेकिन खेती से उनके परिवार का पेट तक नहीं भरता। छोटे-छोटे टुकड़ों के अलग-अलग मालिकों की संपत्ति होने के कारण योजनाबद्ध ढंग से कृषि कर पाना, सिंचाई, खाद, कीटनाशक आदि की व्यवस्था कर पाना और मशीनों का प्रयोग तथा वैज्ञानिक खेती कर पाना सम्भव नहीं रह जाता। हर किसान अपनी खेती के लिए स्वयं जिम्मेदार होता है और वह किसी समूह का अंग नहीं रह जाता। एक तरफ तो वह सरकार से कोई मदद प्राप्त नहीं कर पाता है, वहीं दूसरी तरफ प्राइवेट कम्पनियों के शोषण का शिकार होता है। खेती उसके लिए गले की हड्डी बन जाती है जिसे न तो वह निगल पाता है न उगल पाता है। इसकी तुलना समाजवादी रूस और चीन की सामूहिक और कम्यून खेती से करें तो आश्चर्यजनक अन्तर दिखायी पड़ता है। सिर्फ भारत ही नहीं बल्कि विश्व स्तर पर हम एक मानव निर्मित अकाल की दिशा में आगे बढ़ रहे हैं! हर गुजरते दिन के साथ स्थिति और गम्भीर होती जा रही है। देश की तरक्की की सारी मलाई अमीरों द्वारा चट कर ली जा रही है जबकि उत्पादन में सबसे अधिक योगदान करने वाली तीन-चौथाई मेहनतकश आबादी भूख, कुपोषण, और बीमारियों की शिकार बन रही है। ऐसे में जर्मन कवि बेर्टोल्ट ब्रेष्ट के इन शब्दों को याद करने की ज़रूरत है
गर थाली आपकी खाली है तो सोचना होगा कि खाना कैसे खाओगे ये आप पर है कि पलट दो सरकार को उल्टा जब तक कि खाली पेट नहीं भरता...
जयपुष्प

( "बिगुल" से साभार)

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

About The "Dreaded" Stalin
-- -- by Anna Louise Strong

Source: The Soviets Expected It, The Dial Press, New York, 1941, pp. 46-64

YEARS AGO, when I first lunched with President Roosevelt just after he had seen H। G. Wells, I found that of all the subjects in the Soviet Union the one that interested him the most was the personality of Stalin and especially the technique of “Stalin’s rule.” It is a natural interest; I think it interests most Americans. The unbroken rise of Stalin’s prestige for twenty years both within the Soviet Union and beyond its borders is really worth attention by students of politics.

Yet most of the American press brags of its ignorance of Stalin by frequently alluding to the “enigmatic ruler in the Kremlin.” Cartoons and innuendo have been used to create the legend of a crafty, bloodthirsty dictator who even strives to involve the world in war and chaos so that something called “Bolshevism” may gain. This preposterous legend will shortly die. It was based on the fact that most American editors couldn’t really afford to understand the Soviet Union, and that Stalin himself was usually inaccessible to foreign journalists. Men who had hit the high spots around the world and chatted cozily with Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin D. Roosevelt and even Chiang Kai-shek were irritated when Josef Stalin wouldn’t give them time. The fact of the matter was that Stalin was busy with a job to which foreign contacts and publicity did not contribute. His job, like that of a Democratic National Chairman, was organizing the ruling party and through it the country.
Since the German-Soviet war began, Stalin has become chief of the army and government. He will see more foreigners now. He made a good beginning with Harry Hopkins and W. Averell Harriman. They seem to have been impressed! I know how they were impressed for I also met Stalin. In the light of the impressions that leading Americans and Britons are now going to have of him, the legend of the inscrutable dictator will die. We may even come to hear Stalin spoken of, as a Soviet writer once described him, as “the world’s great democrat”!
When I met Stalin, I did not find him enigmatic. I found him the easiest person to talk to I ever met. He is far and away the best committee chairman of my experience. He can bring everybody’s views out and combine them in the minimum of time. His method of running committees reminded me somewhat of Jane Addams of Hull House or Lillian D. Wald of Henry Street Settlement. They had the same kind of democratically efficient technique, but they used more high pressure than Stalin did.
If Stalin has been inaccessible to foreigners—there were exceptions even to this—that does not mean that he lived in isolation, in a sort of Kremlin ivory tower. There were close to 200,000,000 people keeping him busy. He was seeing a lot of them. Not always necessarily the party leaders. A milkmaid who had broken the milking record, a scientist who had broken the atom, an aviator who flew to America, a coal miner who invented a new labor process, a workman with a housing difficulty, an engineer balked by new conditions—any person representing either a signal achievement or a typical problem might be invited by Stalin to talk it over. That was the way he got his data and kept in touch with the movement of the country.
That, I realized afterwards, was why Stalin saw me. For nearly ten years I had liked his country and tried to succeed there, for nearly two I had organized and tried to edit a little weekly newspaper for other Americans who had come to work for the Five Year Plan. And what with censorship, red tape, and what seemed the wanton emergence of another competing weekly, I wanted to give up. My editor-in-chief was practically blackmailing me that, if I resigned, he would ruin my reputation. Exhausted and angry, I was feeling trapped. A Russian friend suggested that I complain to Stalin. I did. Three days later his office called me up and suggested that I come down and talk it over with “some responsible comrades.” It was done so casually that I almost refused, for the editor-in-chief had finally agreed to my resignation and I was “through with it all.” But I felt that after sending that letter it was only polite to go.
I expected to see some fairly high official at the party headquarters, and was rather stunned when the auto drove straight to the Kremlin and especially when I entered a large conference room and saw not only Stalin rising to greet me, but Kaganovich and Voroshilov too! It seemed overwhelmingly disproportionate. Later I realized that it was not my little problem that chiefly concerned them. I was one of several thousand Americans who had begun to worry them. We had come to the Soviet Union to work in its industries. We were reasonably honest and efficient, but we couldn’t make good. Stalin wanted to know what was the matter with us in our adjustment to Soviet industry. By investigating my troubles he would learn what made us Americans click, or more often not click, in the Soviet land. But if he learned about Americans from me, I learned from him something equally important—how the Soviet Union is put together and how Stalin works.
My first impression of him was vaguely disappointing. A stocky figure in a simple suit of khaki color, direct, unassuming, whose first concern was to know whether I understood Russian sufficiently to take part in discussion. Not very imposing for so great a man, I thought. Then we sat down rather casually, and Stalin was not even at the head of the table; Voroshilov was. Stalin took a place where he could see all our faces and started the talk by a pointed question to the man against whom I had complained. After that Stalin seemed to become a sort of background, against which other people’s comments went on. The brilliant wit of Kaganovich, the cheerful chuckle of Voroshilov, the characteristics of the lesser people called to consult, all suddenly stood out. I began to understand them all and like them; I even began to understand the editor against whom I had complained. Suddenly I myself was talking and getting my facts out faster and more clearly than I ever did in my life. People seemed to agree with me. Everything got to the point very fast and smoothly, with Stalin saying less than anyone.
Afterward in thinking it over I realized how Stalin’s genius for listening helped each of us express ourselves and understand the others. I recalled his trick of repeating a word of mine either with questioning intonation or a slight emphasis, which suddenly made me feel I had either not quite seen the point or perhaps had overstated it, and so drove me to make it plainer. I recalled how he had done this to others also. Then I understood that his listening has been a dynamic force.
This listening habit dates back to the early days of his revolutionary career. “I remember him very well from the early days of our Party,” said a veteran Bolshevik to me. “A quiet youth who sat at the edge of the committee, saying almost nothing, but listening very much. Toward the end he would make a few comments, sometimes merely as questions. Gradually we came to see that he always summed up best our joint thinking.” The description will be recognized by anyone who ever met Stalin. In any group he is usually last to express his opinion. He does not want to block the full expression of others, as he might easily do by speaking first. Besides this, he is always learning by listening.
“He listens even to the way the grass grows,” said a Soviet citizen to me.
On the data thus gathered, Stalin forms conclusions, not “alone in the night,” which Emil Ludwig said was Mussolini’s way, but in conference and discussion. Even in interviews, he seldom receives the interviewer alone; Molotov, Voroshilov, or Kaganovich are likely to be about. Probably he does not even grant an interview without discussing it first with his closest comrades. This is a habit he formed very early. In the days of the underground revolutionary movement, he grew accustomed to close teamwork with comrades who held each other’s lives in their hands. In order to survive, they must learn to agree quickly and unanimously, to feel each other’s instincts, to guess even at a distance each other’s brains. It was in such a group that he gained his Party name—it is not the one that he was born with—“the Steel One, Stalin.”
If I should explain Stalin to politicians, I should call him a superlatively good committeeman. Is this too prosaic a term for the leader of 200,000,000 people? I might call him instead a farseeing statesman; this also is true. Put more important than Stalin’s genius is the fact that it is expressed through good committee work. His talent for co-operative action is more significant for the world than the fact that he is great.
Soviet people have a way of putting it which sounds rather odd to Americans. “Stalin does not think individually,” they say. It is the exact opposite of the “rugged individualist” ideal. But they mean it as the very highest compliment. They mean that Stalin thinks not only with his own brain but in consultation with the brains of the Academy of Science, the chiefs of industry, the Congress of Trade Unions, the Party leaders. Scientists use this way of thinking; so do good trade unionists. They do not “think individually”; they do not rely on the conclusions of a single brain. It is a highly useful characteristic, for no single human brain today is big enough to decide the world’s complex problems. Only the combination of many brains thinking together, not in conflict but in co-operation, can safely handle the problems of today.
Stalin himself has said this a score of times to various interviewers. When Emil Ludwig and, later, Roy Howard sought to learn “how the great dictator made up his mind,” Stalin told them: “Single persons cannot decide. Experience has shown us that individual decisions, uncorrected by others, contain a large percentage of error.”
Soviet people never speak of “Stalin’s will” or “Stalin’s orders”; they speak of “government orders” and “the Party line,” which are decisions produced collectively. But they speak very much of “Stalin’s method” as a method that everyone should learn. It is the method of getting swift decisions out of the brains of many people, the method of good committee work. It is studied carefully in the Soviet Union by bright young men who go in for politics.
For me, the method was emphasized again in the days that immediately followed that first conference. It had seemed to me that Stalin, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, and everybody else had agreed on a certain action. Then the days went by and frothing happened, till the conference seemed almost a dream. I confided my worry to a Russian acquaintance. He laughed.
“That is our ‘terrible democracy,’” he told me. “Of course, your affair is really settled, but technically it must be approved by all the members of the Political Bureau, some of whom are in the Caucasus and some in Leningrad. It will go as routine with a lot of other decisions and none of them will bother about your question because they know nothing about it. But this is our usual safeguard for anyone of the members may wish to add or change something in some decision. That decision will then go back to committee till all are satisfied.”
Stalin brings certain important qualities to these joint decisions. People who meet him are first of all impressed by his directness and simplicity, his swift approach. Next they notice his clearness and objectivity in handling questions. He completely lacks Hitler’s emotional hysteria and Mussolini’s cocky self-assertion; he does not thrust himself into the picture. Gradually one becomes aware of his keen analysis, his colossal knowledge, his grip of world politics, his willingness to face facts, and especially his long view, which fits the problem into history, judging not only its immediate factors, but its past and future too.
Stalin’s rise to power came rather slowly. The rise of his type is slow and sure. It began far back with his study of human history and especially the history of revolutions. President Roosevelt commented to me with surprise on Stalin’s knowledge of the Cromwellian Revolution in Britain as shown in his talk with H. G. Wells. But Stalin quite naturally studied both the British and the American historical revolutions far more intimately than British and American politicians do. Tsarist Russia was due for a revolution. Stalin intended to be in it and help give it form. He made himself a thorough scientist on the process of history from the Marxian viewpoint: how the masses of people live, how their industrial technique and social forms develop, how social classes arise and struggle, how they succeed. Stalin analyzed and compared all past revolutions. He wrote many books about them. But he is not only a scientist; he also acts.
In the early days of the Revolution, Stalin’s name was hardly known outside the Party. In 1923, during Lenin’s last illness, I was told by men whose judgment I trusted that Stalin was “our coming man.” They based this on his keen knowledge of political forces and his close attention to political organization as secretary of the Communist Party. They also based it on his accurate timing of swift action and said that thus far in the Revolution he hid not once guessed wrong. They said that he was the man to whom “responsible Party men” turned for the clearest statement of what they all thought., In those days Trotsky sneered at Stalin as the “most average man” in the Party. In a sense it was true. Stalin keeps close to the “average man”; the “average man” is the material of politics. But Stalin does it with a genius that is very far from average.
“The art of leadership,” said Stalin once, “is a serious matter. One must not lag behind the movement, because to do so is to become isolated from the masses. But one must not rush ahead, for this is to lose contact with the masses.” He was telling his comrades how to become leaders; he was also expressing his own ideal, which he has very effectively practiced.
Twenty years ago in the Russian civil war, Stalin’s instinct for the feeling of the common people more than once helped the Soviet armies to victory. The best known of these moments was the dispute between Stalin and Trotsky about an advance through the North Caucasus. Trotsky wanted to take the shortest military route. Stalin pointed out that this shortcut lay across the unfriendly lands of the Cossacks and would in the end prove longer and bloodier. He chose a somewhat roundabout way through working-class cities and friendly farming regions, where the common people rose to help the Red Armies instead of opposing them. The contrast was typical; it has been illustrated since then by twenty years of history. Stalin is completely at home in the handling of social forces, as is shown by his call today for a “people’s war” in the rear of the German Armies. He knows how to arouse the terrible force of an angry people, how to organize it and release it to gain the people’s desires.
The outside world began to hear of Stalin in the discussions that preceded the first Five Year Plan. (I wrote an article some five years earlier, predicting his rise as Lenin’s successor, but the article went unnoticed; it was several years too soon.) Russian workers outside the Communist Party began to think of Stalin as their leader during the first spectacular expansion of Soviet industry. He first became a leader among the peasants in March, 1930, through his famous article, “Dizziness from Success,” in which he checked the abuses that were taking place in farm collectivization. I have described its effect on the rural districts in the preceding chapter. I remember Walter Duranty waving that article at me and saying, “At last there is a leader in this land!”
Stalin’s great moment when he first appeared as leader of the whole Soviet people was when, as Chairman of the Constitutional Commission, he presented the new Constitution of the Socialist State. A commission of thirty-one of the country’s ablest historians, economists, and political scientists had been instructed to create “the world’s most democratic constitution” with the most accurate machinery yet devised for obtaining “the will of the people.” They spent a year and a half in detailed study of every past constitution in the world, not only of governments but of trade unions and voluntary societies. The draft that they prepared was then discussed by the Soviet people for several months in more than half a million meetings attended by 36,500,000 people. The number of suggested amendments that reached the Constitutional Commission from the popular discussions was 154,000. Stalin himself is known to have read tens of thousands of the people’s letters.
Two thousand people sat in the great white hall of the Kremlin Palace when Stalin made his report to the Congress of Soviets. Below me, where I sat in the journalists’ box, was the main floor filled with the Congress deputies; around me in the loges sat the foreign diplomatic corps; behind me, in a deep gallery, were citizen-visitors. Outside the hall tens of millions of people listened over the radio, from the southern cotton fields of Central Asia to the scientific stations on the Arctic coast. It was a high point of Soviet history. But Stalin’s words were direct and simple and as informal as if he sat at a fireside talking with a few friends. He explained the significance of the Constitution, took up the suggested amendments, referred a large number of them to various lawmaking bodies and himself discussed the most important. He made it plain that everyone of those 154,000 suggestions had been classified somewhere and would influence something.
Among the dozen or more amendments which Stalin personally discussed, he approved of those that facilitated democratic expression and disapproved of those that limited democracy. Some people felt, for instance, that the different constituent republics should not be granted the right to secede from the Soviet Union; Stalin said that, while they probably would not want to secede, their right to do so should be constitutionally guaranteed as an assertion of democracy. A fairly large number of people wanted to refuse political rights to the priests lest they influence politics unduly. “The time has come to introduce universal suffrage without limitations,” said Stalin, arguing that the Soviet people were now mature enough to know their own minds.
More important for us today than constitutional forms, or even the question of how they work, was one very significant note in Stalin’s speech. He ended by a direct challenge to the growing Nazi threat in Europe. Speaking on November 25, 1936, before Hitlerism was seriously opposed by any European government, Stalin called the new Soviet Constitution “an indictment against Fascism, an indictment which says that Socialism and Democracy are invincible.”
In the years since the Constitutional Congress, Stalin’s own personality began to be more widely known. His picture and slogans became so prominent in the Soviet Union that foreigners found this “idolatry” forced and insincere. Most Soviet folk of my acquaintance really do feel tremendous devotion to Stalin as the man who has built their country and led it to success. I have even known people to make a temporary change of residence just before election day in order to have the chance to vote for Stalin directly in the district where he was running, instead of for the less exciting candidate from their own district.
No information about Stalin’s home life is ever printed in Soviet newspapers. By Russian tradition, everybody, even a political leader, is entitled to the privacy of his personal life. A very delicate line divides private life from public work. When Stalin’s wife died, the black-bordered death notices in the paper mentioned her by her own name, which was not Stalin’s, listed her work and connection with various public organizations, and the fact that she was “the friend and comrade of Stalin.” They did not mention that she was his wife. The fact that she worked with him and might influence his decisions as a comrade was a public matter; the fact that she was married to him was their own affair. Some time later, he was known to have married again, but the press never mentioned it.
Glimpses of Stalin’s personal relations come chiefly through his contacts with picturesque figures who have helped make Soviet history. Valery Chkalov, the brilliant aviator who made the first flight across the North Pole from Moscow to America, told of an afternoon that he spent at Stalin’s summer home from four o’clock till after midnight. Stalin sang many Volga songs, put on gramophone records for the younger people to dance, and generally behaved like a normal human being relaxing in the heart of his family. He said he had learned the songs in his Siberian exile when there wasn’t much to do but sing.
The three women aviators who broke all world records for women by their spectacular flight from Moscow to the Far East were later entertained at an evening party at the Kremlin in their honor. One of them, Raskova, related afterwards how Stalin had joked with them about the prehistoric days of the matriarchate when women ruled human society. He said that in the early days of human development women had created agriculture as a basis for society and progress, while men “only hunted and went to war.” After a reference to the long subsequent centuries of woman’s slavery, Stalin added, “Now these three women come to avenge the heavy centuries of woman’s suppression.”
The best tale, I think, is that about Marie Demchenko, because it shows Stalin’s idea of leaders and of how they are produced. Marie was a peasant woman who came to a farm congress in Moscow and made a personal pledge to Stalin, then sitting on the platform, that her brigade of women would produce twenty tons of beets per acre that year. It was a spectacular promise, since the average yield in the Ukraine was about five tons. Marie’s challenge started a competition among the Ukrainian sugar beet growers; it was featured by the Soviet press. The whole country followed with considerable excitement Marie’s fight against a pest of moths. The nation watched the local fire department bring twenty thousand pails of water to the field to beat the drought. They saw that gang of women weed the fields nine times and clear them eight times of insects. Marie finally got twenty-one tons per acre, while the best of her competitors got twenty-three.
That harvest was a national event. So Marie’s whole gang went to Moscow to visit Stalin at the autumn celebration. The newspapers treated them like movie stars and featured their conversation. Stalin asked Marie what she most wanted as a reward for her own good record and for stirring up all the other sugar beet growers. Marie replied that she had wanted most of all to come to Moscow and see “the leaders.”
“But now you yourselves are leaders,” said Stalin to Marie.
“Well, yes,” said Marie, “but we wanted to see you anyway.” Her final request, which was granted, was to study in an agricultural university.
When the German war was launched against the Soviet Union, many foreigners were surprised that Stalin did not make a speech to arouse the people at once. Some of our more sensational papers assumed that Stalin had fled! Soviet people knew that Stalin trusted them to do their jobs and that he would sum the situation up for them as soon as it crystallized. He did it at dawn on July 3 in a radio talk. The words with which he began were very significant.
“Comrades! Citizens!” he said, as he has said often. Then he added, “Brothers and Sisters!” It was the first time Stalin ever used in public those close family words. To everyone who heard them, those words meant that the situation was very serious, that they must now face the ultimate test together and that they must all be closer and dearer to each other than they had ever been before. It meant that Stalin wanted to put a supporting arm across their shoulders, giving them strength for the task they had to do. This task was nothing less than to accept in their own bodies the shock of the most hellish assault of history, to withstand it, to break it, and by breaking it save the world. They knew they had to do it, and Stalin knew they would.
Stalin made perfectly plain that the danger was grave, that the German armies had taken most of the Baltic states, that the struggle would be very costly, and that the issues were between “freedom or slavery, life or death to the Soviet State.” He told them: “The enemy is cruel and implacable. He is out to seize our lands, watered with our sweat . . . to convert our peoples into the slaves of German princes and barons.” He called upon the “daring initiative and intelligence that are inherent in our people,” which he himself for more than twenty years had helped to create. He outlined in some detail the bitter path they should follow, each in his own region, and said that they would find allies among the freedom-loving peoples of the world. Then he summoned them “forward—to victory.”
Erskine Caldwell, reporting that dawn from Moscow, said that tremendous crowds stood in the city squares listening to the loud speakers, “holding their breath in such profound silence that one could hear every inflection of Stalin’s voice.” Twice during the speech, even the sound of water being poured into a glass could be heard as Stalin stopped to drink. For several minutes after Stalin had finished the silence continued. Then a motherly-looking woman said, “He works so hard, I wonder when he finds time to sleep. I am worried about his health.”
That was the way that Stalin took the Soviet people into the test of war.