Stalin as Depicted in The
Children of Arbat
- A. Charumati Ramdas
Russian literature of the
last decade of XX century is like a kaleidoscope which presents different
patterns and different colour combinations. The people were quite thrilled
about the whole idea of ‘freedom’, which promised freedom of expression as
well. It was therefore imperative that all that could not see the light of the
day during the Soviet regime would definitely be published.
A quick look at the literary
scene clearly shows that the following major works were published during this
period:
- Some ancient historical works, such as History
of Russian Kingdom written by Karamzin;
- Literary works of authors who were punished or exiled during the
early years of The October Revolution : This category includes such
authors as E.Zamyatin, B.Pilnyak, M.Bulgakov, M. Zoshenko etc.;
- Works of those writers who were banned
during the post-Stalin era : B.Pasternak’s Dr.Zhivago, A.Solzhenytsin’s
works and similar others fall into this category;
- Works of immigrants, such as J.Brodsky,
V.Nabokov etc.;
- Works which remained unpublished without any
proper reason, such as The Children of Arbat written by A.Rybakov
and other works;
- The socialist writers who were writing about
society, human psyche, social problems, intricacies of human nature etc
continued their pursuit of art by trying to evolve new devices of
presentation, thereby adding a new dimension to the socialist realism.
It is, then, obvious that
the themes of these works would also vary. One major theme of Russian
literature during the period 1987 – 1997 was that of Stalin.
A lot has been written about
Stalin after his death and very little during his life time.
During his life time only a
few, very few writers dared to write about him. In the 20’s Boris Pilnyak wrote
his Tale of unextinguished moon, which was based on the
circumstances in which Commander Frunze died.
Frunze had an ulcer which he
got cured by use of mineral waters. But Stalin made him undergo surgery for
removing this ulcer. Frunze could not protest – he had to listen to the command
of his leader. A young doctor was ordered to perform this surgery. The doctor
started administering chloroform to the patient. Chloroform was given to Frunze
for the whole 48 minutes, as a result he died before the operation.
Copies of this Tale…were
confiscated, Pilnyak was first made to apologize, and later on he was arrested
and shot dead. In his Tale… Boris Pilnyak had warned about the dark era
that was soon going to engulf the country. The Tale… is also the ‘tale’
about ‘the straight man’ whose face is not shown, as it was in the shadow of
the lamp, his voice could only be heard. The Tale… tells about his
silent ways of ruling the country, about his formulae to eliminate the unwanted
people from his way.
Pilnyak was probably the
first who dared to present the scene of Commander’s death, which looked similar
to a political murder. But this Tale… could not prevent any more
political murders, nor the purges which shook the country in the 30’s.
After Boris Pilnyak, another
person to write about Stalin was Osip Mandelshtam. In 1934 he wrote a poem in
which he described how people talk in whispers as they are scared that their
conversation would be heard by the Kremlin Giants. Mandelshtam compared
Stalin’s moustaches with cockroaches; his orders with the hoofs of running
horses which fall on somebody’s groin, forehead, eyebrows or eyes irrespective
of the age and gender of the victim. All these killings for him are like
collecting raspberries in a field. Mandelshtam also says that Stalin’s fingers
were thick and always oily. Clue for this real description he got from a note
in a proletarian poet Demyan Bednyi’s diary wherein he had written that he does
not like to lend books to Stalin because he leaves thick greasy marks of his
fingers on their pages. Bednyi’s secretary carried this to Kremlin, as a result
Bednyi fell into disgrace. Mandelshtam wrote his poem on hearing about this
incident. Of course, there was no question of it being even recited anywhere.
Only once, while going on an evening walk Mandelshtam recited it before
Pasternak, who first asked him whether he had read it before anyone else. On
hearing a negative answer Pasternak advised Mandelshtam to burn it and forget
it. But somehow news about a derogatory poem about Stalin reached him and
Mandelshtam had to repent by giving his life.
After these two incidents,
nobody ever dared to depict a realistic character of Stalin in their works. All
that was written, only praised him. Even during Khrushchev’s period, when there
was a short period of ‘Thaw’ writers didn’t think to write about Stalin. But after
the declaration of Glasnost and Perestroika, things slowly started changing and
many works were written about Stalin. But even in them, all the truth about him
was expressed allegorically. Stalin was shown under a mask. The first attempt
to give a realistic portrait of Stalin, based on real life incidents was made
in Anatoly Rybakov’s novel The Children of Arbat. The novel is based on
real life incidents of the author and hence it could well be considered as his
autobiography. The novel was completed in the 60’s and Novyi Mir announced that
in 1967 it is going to publish Rybakov’s The Children of Arbat. This
could not happen. Then, in 1979 another journal OCTOBER announced its proposed
publication, which too failed to fulfill its promise. The novel ultimately came
out in 1987 in a third journal ‘ Druzhba Narodov’ .
The novel has seven small
novelettes – each one being the fate of seven children – four boys and three girls
who lived in Arbat. They studied in the same class, in the same school; they
were friends, had the same doubts and confusions about life. Obviously a more
or less similar career and fate as well could be expected for them. But they
found themselves in diametrically opposite situations. While Sasha Pankratov –
the protagonist, had to suffer for three long years of his prime youth in a small
village on Angara in Siberia for some cartoons which appeared in the
wall-newsletter of the Polytechnic Institute where he was studying; his
classmate Yura Sharok proved successful in the Internal Security Department. This
was the same notorious department which was responsible for arresting and
torturing millions of innocent people.
Another important
person in this novel – or, we could say, another hero there, is Stalin. This is
a novel about Sasha Pankratov and about Stalin. Seemingly unconnected, the
plots are very much connected with each other, as Stalin influenced the fate of
millions like Sasha. Conflict between these two opposite characters is in fact
the main conflict of time. Did Stalin really know about Sasha? Why was innoncent
Sasha, who was related to a powerful Party leader Mark Ryzanov arrested and
sent to Siberia? Behind this and similar incidents lay the reasoning and
arguing tacticsa of Stalin. Through internal monologue Anatoly Rybakov presents
a real picture of Stalin. Author describes not only his appearance, character,
childhood, but also leads us through events which led to Kirov’s murder.
Rybakov writes that Stalin
was short – less than medium height – well built, speckled person with slightly
Mongolian eyes. From his thick hair over a narrow forehead could be seen some
greyness. His eyes were light brown, lively. When he was in normal mood they
looked smiling, but when he was angry, the same smiling eyes would turn
yellowish, heavy, like the eyes of a tiger; they reflected anger at the person
to whom he would be talking. One eyebrow would go almost vertical. He used to
speak with a strong Georgian accent.
Time described in the novel
is – first half of the 30’s. Main Party leaders were Orjhonikidze, Voroshilov,
Molotov, Zhdanov, Kirov, Enikudze, Budyagin, Ygaoda, Mikoyan etc. Though most
of them had been working with Stalin since Prerevolutionary times, he was never
friendly and kind to them, especially after he became General Secretary of the
Communist Party. Such was his nature – even in exile, he had stopped talking to
friends who used to make fun of his funny habit of sleeping without removing
his linen, of his silken quilt. Stalin took these jokes seriously. He thought they
were laughing at his impracticality, at his weakness. So, friends stopped
making fun of him. It was impossible to enter into an argument with him – he
would never compromise, never forget the argument – no one, then, wanted to insult
him. Not insulting implied not arguing, not putting counter arguments. The
opponent in discussion would become, for him, his personal enemy. HE was thus
intolerable with all these whims, insults, misunderstandings. While others used
to go for hunting or fishing, he would sit in his hut by window and would read
in Kerosene light. BY this, the lonely uncompromising Georgian won sympathy –
friends excused him a lot.
During the years of the
Civil War – in the 20’s – Stalin started playing an important role. His strong
will power and energy would serve the cause of Revolution: disloyalty,
rudeness, desire for autocracy was tolerated. Yes, Revolution uses even the
ultimate devices. But in the epoch of construction, these very qualities proved
dangerous. Stalin possessed comprehensive, uncontrolled power. Lenin had long
back warned about it in his famous letter and recommended Stalin’s removal from
the post of General Secretary. He did not want Stalin to be his successor who
considered loyalty to an idea as loyalty to himself. Feeble and weak in childhood,
he was easily insulted by anything that questioned his physical strength and
bravery – this state of mind later on gave rise to suspiciousness.
What were the reasons for
such behaviour? Could be his origin, could be his childhood.
Joseph Vissarinovich was
born in a small village Atheni, 10 kms away from Gori in shoe-maker Jugasvili’s
family. Father often had to go out in connection with his work – he was not on
good terms with wife. Mother was a dominating type; she was clean Georgian, while
father was Ossetin. Little Joseph’s mother used to work in a rich man
Egnatashvili’s house. In the seminary where Joseph was studying, it was said
that Egnatashvili was Joseph’s father – since he was taking all care of the
kid, put him into Seminary. Had he been shoe-maker Jugashvili’s son, he would
have been taught the craft of shoe-making.
Stalin himself did not
believe any of these rumors. He believed that his father was Jugashvili. Mother
often quarreled with his father because he was too poor. For this Stalin did
not like his mother.
Mother often took him to
Egnatashvili so that he could be fed properly. Joseph hated sitting out in the
verandah and eating alone, while other members of that family would eat, drink and
talk in the big hall. Whenever he was taken to Egnatashvili , mother used to
dress him in good clothes. Why? Joseph thought that dress, on the one hand
shows off wealth, and on the other it covers poverty. He was not ashamed of his
poverty…so he continued putting on simple dresses like a real man! Like a simple
soldier! He started hating rich, for they were proud of their wealth and also
hated poor because they were ashamed of
their poverty.
In Seminary no one touched
him because of a defect in his hand, but later on this was not considered as
his physical disability; they were rude and ruthless to him. He answered with
more rudeness. Lenin criticized him for this rudeness, but Joseph
Vissarionovich had only one principle – one can rule only by rudeness, rudeness
of state machinery can keep under thumb rudeness of people. Rudeness can be
suppressed only by a strong power, such a power is called dictatorship.
Gradually Joseph
Vissarionovich became more powerful and strong, but even then this strong
feeling of loneliness kept on haunting him. He knew that though his associates
stand and applause for him, they don’t love him, they are scared of him. They
can’t digest his supremacy, exceptionality, uniqueness (He had a very high
opinion of himself). For them he is an illiterate seminarist. They are afraid
that his power is getting stronger and stronger; they talked about collective
leadership, about the role of Central Committee, criticized the role of a person
in History, thus trying to belittle his role in the history of Party, in the
history of Russia.
But they didn’t succeed. He
decided to create not only a new history of Russia, but also work out new
criteria for evaluating historical events – that was the only way to ensure a
correct judgment by the present and the future generations about HIS EPOCH.
Till then the authoritative
book prevailing on history of Russia was Pokrovsky’s ‘Compact Russian History’.
Pokrovsky, according to Stalin, presented himself as the only interpreter of
Lenin’s ideas. “No,” thought Stalin, “excuse me, please! The exclusive
interpreter of Lenin’s ideology could be only his successor and Stalin, being Lenin’s successor and leader of
the country, is the exclusive interpreter of Lenin’s heritage and in the historical
field as well; as HE will MAKE this history. Pokrovsky’s school is anti-Marxist
and it should be torn into pieces. Lenin’s ideas should satisfy Party’s present
as well as future needs – Lenin’s ideas should be inherited by his successor.
Stalin is today’s Lenin; when Stalin dies – his successor would be called
‘Today’s Stalin'. Historical sciences should affirm that Stalin is the real
successor of Lenin, there could have been no other successor. Those who aspired
for this heritage were MISERABLE IMPOSTERS, conspirators. History should affirm
that STALIN ALWAYS STOOD BY LENIN and not Zinovyev, who was Lenin’s secretary
in emigration; not even Kamensky, who was his steno there – but HE, who
practically constituted Party in Russia. That’s why it is called the Communist
Party of Lenin and Stalin. All the petty differences between Lenin and Stalin
should be forgotten and thrown out of history forever. History should retain
only that which is making Stalin today’s Lenin. Main thing is to create a
strong socialist state, for this a powerful, strong government is required. Stalin
is leader of this power which implies that he, along with Lenin stood by its
origin, guided The Great October Revolution. History should not say anything
different.
But will this be distortion
of History? No, not at all. October Revolution was performed by Party and not
by those who lived in Paris, London and elsewhere. While these intellectuals
were busy organising discussions and seminars in cafes, the real workers had to
speak in whispers. It was they who raised the masses for the decisive battle.
HE is the representative of these Party cadres and hence, their role in The Revolution
is – his role. That is the true role of the masses and the person in history.
On these principles should
the history of country and history of Party be written. The so called
collective rule is a myth. There has never been a collective leadership in the
history of mankind. History of mankind is the history of class-struggle. But a
class is represented by its leader, so history of mankind is history of its
leaders and rulers. Essence of the epoch
is determined by those who create this epoch.”
Having thus decided to
change the history, Stalin started eliminating his close allies one after
another.
He would declare them
peoples’ enemies, frame court cases against them, and, strangely, under some
pressure, made them publicly confess their sins.
First to die under this plan
was Kirov. He was shot dead while boarding a tram-car. Some people started
doubting Stalin’s intentions, tried to caution people, but Stalin grew stronger
day by day. He ruled the country by terror, made the ‘apparat’ listen to him
and enjoyed this position till the end of his life.
*********
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
टिप्पणी: केवल इस ब्लॉग का सदस्य टिप्पणी भेज सकता है.