फ़ेसबुक, कविता और समीक्षा पर एक टीप

चार-पांच दिन पहले, जब विमलेश त्रिपाठी के स्टेटस पर एक कवितानुमा रचना पढ़ी, उस पर टिप्पणी की और उसे शेयर भी किया, तब से ही कई तरह की बातें दिमाग़ की 'दांय' करने में लगी हैं. उस रचना का लब्बोलुबाव तो इतना भर था-- एक ने 'क' से लिखा 'कविता', दूसरे ने 'क' से लिखा 'कहानी' और तीसरे ने 'कुछ' भी न लिखा, और पुरस्कार उस तीसरे व्यक्ति को ही मिल गया. इसमें ऐसा क्या था जिससे मेरे दिमाग़ की दांय होनी चाहिए थी. मित्र, अमित्र, शत्रु सब एकमत हो कर कहेंगे, 'कुछ भी नहीं.' तो फिर?

'क' से 'कई' भी होता है, यानि कई बातें सिर उठाने लगीं. पहली तो यह कि वह रचना 'कविता' कही जा सकती भी है या नहीं? 'क' से बनता है 'कथ्य'. तो यदि वह 'कविता' है, तो उसमें कोई 'कथ्य' भी है या नहीं? 'क' से बनता है 'क्या', तो क्या 'कविता' और 'कहानी' लिख देने भर से इस रचना का 'कथ्य' निर्मित हो गया? या वह निर्मित हुआ तीसरे के 'कुछ न' लिखने से? या फिर 'कुछ न लिखने वाले' के पुरस्कृत हो जाने से? क्या वास्तव में ऐसा होता है /हो सकता है? यदि हां, तो भी क्या यह किसी क़ायदे की रचना का उपयुक्त कथ्य बन सकता है?

अच्छी रचनाओं को पीछे धकिया कर, बुरी ( या उतनी अच्छी नहीं) रचनाएं तात्कालिक रूप से यदा-कदा आगे आ जाएं और कम समर्थ रचनाकार अधिक समर्थ रचनाकारों से आगे निकल जाएं, दौड में; यह भी संभव है. हो भी चुका होगा कई बार. पर इस सबकी पड़ताल 'कभी' बाद में 'क्योंकि' इस समय, प्रमुख मुद्दा एकांतिक रूप से यह हो भी नहीं सकता.

कविता की मृत्यु की घोषणाएं इतनी बार हो चुकी हैं कि इनकी गिनती रख पाना भी संभव नहीं. पर इन तमाम घोषणाओं के बावजूद कविता न केवल ज़िंदा है, बल्कि उसकी सेहत भी पूरी तरह से ठीक है. अभी तीन दिन पहले ही बाबुषा की बहुत बढ़िया कविता पढ़ने को मिली :"वसीयत." पिछले सप्ताह लीना मल्होत्रा की "प्रतिलिपि" में छपी तीन कविताएं पढ़ीं. प्रेमचंद गांधी की कविता 'भाषा की बारादरी' भी इसी बीच आई. हरीश करमचन्दाणी की कविताएं भी. आवेश तिवारी की श्वेताम्बरा श्रृंखला की कविताओं के अलावा दूसरी कविताएं, अंजू शर्मा की कविता जिस पर तो लगभग घमासान ही मच गया था. अरुण देव और अपर्णा मनोज की भी विशेष ध्यानाकृष्ट करने वाली दो-दो कविताएं. तो बीस दिन के भीतर इतनी सारी अच्छी कविताओं का फेसबुक पर आ जाना एक अच्छा संकेत है. ये सिर्फ़ उदहारण हैं. कथ्य और शिल्प जहां एकमेक हो गए हैं. कथ्यविहीन कविताएं भी आ रही हैं, शब्दों के मनमाने प्रयोग वाली कविताएं भी. दो-तीन मित्र लोग मिलकर किसी कवि को 'जोड़-तोड़' से दूर रहने वाला घोषित कर देते हैं, और किसी को 'सबसे कम जादुई', और यह 'अहो रूपम, अहो ध्वनि' का खेल चलता है; तीन-चार मित्र मिलकर किन्हीं दो मित्रों को 'कविता के सबसे अधिक संजीदा आलोचक' घोषित कर देते हैं. और ध्यान देने की बात यह है कि जो कुछ भी इस घेरे के बाहर हो रहा है, वह उल्लेखनीय नहीं है इनकी नज़र में. कहीं कोई पुरस्कार/ सम्मान घोषित हो गया तो " कितनी कविताएं, कितने सम्मान" (!) जैसा उच्छ्वास निकलता है. अरे भाई, कवि हो तो किसी कवि के सम्मान पा जाने पर ऐसी टिप्पणी करने की क्या जरूरत है? और सम्मानों से ही परहेज़ करते हो या उन्हें स्वस्थ / सार्थक रचनाशीलता के लिए घातक मानते हो, तो सभी सम्मानितों /पुरस्कृतों को एक ही नज़र से देखो. या फिर खुलकर यह कहो कि फलां कवि को ग़लत आधारों पर पुरस्कृत/ सम्मानित किया गया है. तर्कसम्मत विश्लेषण कर सको तो 'सोने पर सुहागा.' पर दुर्भाग्य से यह सब हो नहीं रहा.

मैंने पिछली बार, अपने ब्लॉग 'सोची-समझी' पर, 'क' से कुमारेन्द्र पारसनाथ सिंह की दो कविताएं दी थीं. ये कविताएं 1974 में, हमने 'क्यों' में छापी थीं. यों उस अंक में उनकी आठ कविताएं छपी थीं. ये दोनों कविताएं उस वक़्त बेहद सराही गई थीं. 'कथ्य' की दृष्टि से देखें तो इस देश में अभी तक भी ऐसा कुछ नहीं घटित हो गया है, सामाजिक-राजनैतिक तौर पर, कि इन कविताओं की प्रासंगिकता कम/ खत्म हो गई हो. यह मानने के भी कोई कारण नहीं दिखते कि कुमारेन्द्र पारस नाथ सिंह के कृतित्व से परिचित लोग फेसबुक पर सक्रिय नहीं हैं. इसके एक दम उलट, यहां सक्रिय लोगों में सर्वाधिक कवि-टिप्पणीकार वे ही हैं जो भौगोलिक रूप से भी उस इलाके से / आसपास से आते हैं जो कुमारेंद्र की रचना भूमि/ कर्म भूमि था. मैं यह सब क्यों लिख रहा हूं? सिर्फ़ यह बात सार्वजानिक करने के लिए कि किसी भी रचना के संभाव्य प्रभाव का अनुमान लगा पाने में मैं पहली बार चूक गया. मुझे इन कविताओं को साझा करते वक़्त यह लगा था कि बहुत सारे कवि, संजीदा पाठक, और टिप्पणीकार इन कविताओं से नए सिरे से रू-ब-रू होने पर न केवल प्रसन्नता ज़ाहिर करेंगे, बल्कि इनकी समकालीन सन्दर्भों में प्रासंगिकता को रेखांकित करने का प्रयत्न भी करेंगे. अपनी विरासत से नए लोगों का परिचय भी वरना कैसे होगा? ऐसा हुआ नहीं. मुझे क्यों बुरा लगना चाहिए? कुमारेन्द्र अब हैं नहीं हमारे बीच, तो वह तो अच्छा/ बुरा लगने की ज़द से बहुत दूर जा चुके हैं. हां, फिर भी मुझे बुरा लगा. इसलिए कि मैं फेसबुक पर सक्रिय ऐसे कई लोगों को जानता हूं जो कुमारेन्द्र का जब-तब उल्लेख भी करते रहे हैं अपने आलोचनात्मक लेखन में, और दो-चार दिन में कहीं 'लाइक' करके या एकाध वाक्य की टिप्पणी करके कुछ लोगों से अपना जुड़ाव भी व्यक्त करते रहते हैं. 'गंभीर कविता' की अनदेखी, और 'न-कविता' की प्रशस्ति -ये दोनों ही अपराध हैं, ख़ासकर उनके लिए जो कविता से अपनी प्रतिश्रुति घोषित करते रहते हैं. कुमारेन्द्र की इन कविताओं पर कुल 6 टिप्पणियां ( जिनमें से चार ने कविता की पंक्तियाँ उद्धृत भर कर दी थीं) आईं. एक, आशुतोष कुमार की तरफ़ से, आई जिसे पूरी टिप्पणी कहा जा सकता है :"इन कविताओं को फिर से पढ़ना महज़ कविता पढना नहीं है . उस गुजरे हुए दौर को पढ़ना भी है , जब अन्याय के खिलाफ शब्द हथियारों की तरह बरते जा रहे थे. और इस दौर में उस दौर को पढ़ना जब ' अन्याय ' और ' प्रतिरोध ' शब्द मात्र की तरह पढ़े जा रहे हों !"

कविता यदि हमारी मनःस्थितियों का चित्रण भर करती है तो वह कोई ख़ास तीर मार लेने वाला काम नहीं बन पाता. और फिर हम आलोचकों को कोसने लगते हैं; शिकायत करने लगते हैं कि उनकी वजह से "कविता की जान सांसत में" है, जबकि सच यह है कि अपनी जान को ही सांसत में महसूस कर रहे होते हैं. मज़ा देखिए, कि जान सांसत में है फिर भी हम कविता को अपना पर्याय बना लेते हैं.

यह फेसबुक की सीमा नहीं है, उसे बरतने वालों की, उस पर सक्रिय लोगों की विशिष्टता है या 'विशिष्ट' दिखने की चाहत है. क्या कविता में लोकतंत्र तब तक क़ायम हो सकता है जब तक कि कवियों और आलोचकों की लोकतंत्र में निष्ठा न हो? कवि को आलोचक तब तक ही अच्छे लगते रहें जब तक कि वे उस की प्रशंसा करते रहें? अपने अलावा अन्य कवियों की प्रशंसा में अपनी 'हेठी' क्यों माननी चाहिए? महिला कवि की प्रशंसा हो तो उसे 'लैंगिक पक्षपात' के रूप में ही क्यों देखा जाना चाहिए? कविता की अथवा किसी भी विधा में प्रस्तुत रचना की किसी वस्तुपरक कसौटी का तो मान किया ही जाना चाहिए. चार-छह पंक्तियों की कविताएं अपवाद स्वरुप ही टिकाऊ महत्त्व की हो सकती हैं, यह तो सहज बुद्धि से समझ में आ जाना चाहिए. डेढ़ पंक्ति के वाक्य में पूरी कविता यदि आ जाती है, एक साथ लिखने पर, तो उसके 'कालजयी' होने का भ्रम तो नहीं ही पाला जाना चाहिए.

फेसबुक सामाजिक अंतरजाल से जुड़ने का माध्यम यदि है, जैसा कि इसे कहा जाता है, तो क्या इसका निहितार्थ यह नहीं समझा जाना चाहिए कि इससे जुड़ने का मतलब है अधिक सामाजिक होना. सामाजिकता विकसित होने/ करने की एक अन्तर्निहित शर्त यह भी है कि व्यक्तिवादी आग्रहों को तिरोहित करने की प्रक्रिया से जुड़ लिया जाए. तभी कदाचित कविता का, और फिर कवि का, स्थान वैसा बन पाए जैसा हर कवि 'अपने लिए' चाहता है. मर्यादा बनाए रखकर की जाने वाली हर बहस इस दिशा में आगे बढ़ने का मार्ग प्रशस्त करेगी, प्रत्येक के लिए. ऐसा मुझे लगता है. ज़रूरी नहीं कि आप इससे सहमत हों. विचार और चर्चा का फौरी प्रस्थान बिंदु तो यह बन ही सकता है.

कुमारेंद्र पारसनाथ सिंह की दो कविताएं

"क्यों" के चौथे अंक (नवंबर 1973) में हमने हिंदी के बड़े कवि कुमारेंद्र पारसनाथ सिंह की आठ कविताएं छापी थीं. इन्हें उस समय बेहद सराहा गया था, इनमें से दो कविताएं न जाने क्यों पिछले कई दिनों से बार-बार याद आ रही थीं. फेसबुक पर सक्रिय अधिकांश हिंदी कवि और टिप्पणीकार तब तक या तो पैदा नहीं हुए थे, या फिर शैशवावस्था से कैशोर्य के बीच कहीं किसी पड़ाव पर रहे होंगे, यानी उस समय की लघु पत्रिकाओं में प्रकाशित होने वाले साहित्य की छाया तक से काफ़ी दूर. इसीलिये मुझे लगा कि इनमें से, कम से कम, दो कविताएं आपके साथ साझा करूं.. ये कविताएं दस्तावेज़ी महत्व की हैं.

चवरी

             (चवरी  आरा के पास एक बस्ती है जिसमें ज़्यादातर हरिजन और दलित वर्ग के शोषित-दमित-प्रताड़ित लोग रहते हैं. कुछ दिन पहले पुलिस ने धनी किसानों के साथ मिलकर उन पर 'रेड' किया था. कारण? वे लोग मज़दूरी की एवज़ में भर-पेट  खाना मांगते थे. उन्होंने पुलिस के धावे का प्रतिरोध किया, पर सशस्त्र पुलिस धावे के सामने कितना टिक पाते ! -सं.)

कभी चंदना - रूपसपुर

कभी चंवरी !

यह चवरी कहां है?

                भोजपुर

                यानि बाबू कुंवर सिंह के ज़िला शाहाबाद

                 यानि दलितों के पैग़म्बर महात्मा गांधी के

                  हिंदुस्तान 

                  यानि अब इस नए समाजवाद में ----

                  आखिर कहां है चवरी ?

जलियांवाला बाग़ से कितनी दूर ---

वियतनाम के कितनी क़रीब ?

                    कोई भी ठीक-ठीक नहीं बोलता !

                    फिर, तू ही बोल - कहां है चवरी ?

तूने तो देस-बिदेस के ड्राइंग रूमों में सजे 

किसिम किसिम के आइनों में झांका होगा --

कहीं चवरी को भी देखा ?

जो सड़क चवरी से निकलकर दिल्ली जाती है

उसका दिल्ली से क्या वास्ता है ?

चवरी की हरिजन टोली के नौजवानों के धुंधुआते पेट से

खींच कर लायी गई अंतड़ियों की लंबाई क्या है ?

(कुछ पता है वे कब फिर पलीता बन जाएंगी !)

***

चंदना-रूपसपुर से चवरी पहुंचने में 

समय को कितना कम चलना पड़ा है !

और कितनी कम बर्बाद हुई है राजधानी की नींद

पुलिस के 'खूनी', और न्यायपालिका के 'बूचड़खाने' 

                                          बन जाने में !

***

जिसे कहते हैं 

               मुल्क

               प्रशासन 

               न्यायपालिका

उसका रामकली के लिए क्या अर्थ रह गया है ?

रामकली गुम हो कर सोचती है

और उसकी समझ में कुछ नहीं आ रहा है.

लाली गौने आई है

और लालमोहर उससे छीनकर मिटा दिया गया है -

वह समय के सामने

अकेले, बुत बनी रहती है - उसकी बेबाक आंखों के लिए 

दिन और रात में कोई फ़र्क़ नहीं रह गया है !

दीना और बैजू और रघुवंश की छांह के नीचे

जनतंत्र

किसी बड़े मुजरिम सा 

सिर नीचे किए बैठा है

और कहीं कुछ नहीं हो रहा है !

***

मजबूरी का नाम महात्मा गांधी है;

फिर, भूख और तबाही  और ज़ोरो-ज़ुल्म का क्या 

                                           नाम होगा?

क्या नाम होगा इस नए जनतंत्र और समाजवाद का ?

नक्सलबाड़ी या श्रीकाकुलम बहुत छोटा नाम होगा !

फिर, सही नाम क्या होगा ?

***

तुझे

मुल्क ने जाने-अनजाने 

जी-जान से चाहा है

तेरी मुस्कान को तरोताज़ा रखने के लिए

(खुद भूखा रहकर भी )

एक-से-एक खूबसूरत गुलाब पैदा किया है !

तेरे फूल को 

(जब तू नहीं रहेगी)

गोद में ले लेने के लिए

हरी-से-हरी घास उगाई है !

और तेरे होठों को चूमने के लिए 

बड़ा-से-बड़ा जानदार आइना तैयार किया है !

फिर क्या कमी रह गई है

कि उसकी सुबह अब तक 

                      शाम से अलग नहीं हो सकी है?

***

ठंडे लोहे पर टंगी

काठ की घंटियों के सहारे 

आंगन के पार द्वार 

कठपुतली उर्वशी का यह नाटक 

                      आखिर कब तक जारी रहेगा ?

***

आत्महत्या के लिए सबसे माकूल वक़्त तब होता है

जब रौशनी से अंधकार का फ़र्क़ मिट जाता है

बोल, फिर क्या बात है - आत्महत्या कर लेगी?

या अंधेरे से घबराया हुआ कोई हाथ बढ़कर 

                                तेरा गला दबोच लेगा?

छिपकर कहां रहेगी 

आज सारा हिंदुस्तान चवरी है

जिसके हिस्से से रौशनी गायब है.

आदमी के लिए एक नाम

जिसे कहते हैं मुल्क 

उसके लिए हम जान देते हैं - 

मगर वो मुल्क हमारा नहीं होता 

जिसे कहते हैं लोकतंत्र 

उसके लिए हम वोट देते हैं  

मगर वो लोकतंत्र हमारा नहीं होता 

जिसे कहते हैं सरकार 

उसके लिए हम टैक्स देते हैं  

मगर वो सरकार हमारी नहीं होती 

और जिसके लिए हम कुछ नहीं करते 

वो आदमी हमारा होता है, 

हमारे साथ मरता है, जीता है 

हमसे झगड़ता भी है 

तो भी बिल्कुल हमारा होता है 

क्या जो हम सब करते हैं, ग़लत होता है?

                                         लगता है, 

हमने अपना नाम ग़लत रख लिया है - 

जिसे हम अपना मुल्क कहते हैं वो हमारा 

मुल्क नहीं होता, जिस जाति और वंश पर 

हमें अभिमान होता है वह जाति हमारी नहीं होती -

उस वंश में हम पैदा हुए नहीं रहते 

हमें अपने लिए कोई और मुल्क 

खोजना चाहिए. अपने लिए कोई और 

नाम तजबीज़ कर लेना चाहिए. और 

ज़रूरत पड़े (पड़ती ही है) तो 'मैं' को निकालकर 

'हम' को पोख्ता कर लेना चाहिए.

'मैं' को 'हम' के लिए 

मिटा दिया जा सकता है 

कि 'मैं' के लिए 'हम' ज़रूरी - सबसे सही 

                                            नाम है.

पूंजी के खिलाफ़ श्रम का विद्रोह

"क्यों" - ५ (फरवरी १९७४) में हमने इस साक्षात्कार का डॉ. मैनेजर पांडेय द्वारा किया गया अनुवाद प्रकाशित किया था. इस साक्षात्कार का महत्व जितना उस समय था, उससे कम आज भी नहीं है. समूचा पूंजीवादी विश्व आज जिस तरह के भीषण संकट से गुज़र रहा है, बहुत संभव है कि उससे बाहर निकलने में मार्क्स के सुझाये तरीक़े कोई ठोस मदद कर सकें. इसके लिए यह भी ज़रूरी हो ही सकता है कि मार्क्स के चिंतन का सृजनात्मक विस्तार करने की ज़रूरत पड़े, वांछित परिणाम पाने के लिए. इससे भी ज़्यादा ज़रूरी है उन लोगों का एक संगठित शक्ति के रूप में 'होना' और फिर 'सक्रिय' होना जोकि इस विचार को व्यवहार में तब्दील करने की सामर्थ्य और तत्परता से लैस हों. 


यह साक्षात्कार इस दृष्टि से भी बहुत महत्वपूर्ण है कि यह रोग के लक्षण पर नहीं उसकी जड़ पर प्रहार करने की ज़रूरत को रेखांकित करता है. मामला चाहे महंगाई का हो या भ्रष्टाचार का, ये दोनों, रोग के लक्षण हैं कारण नहीं.  प्रशासनिक सुधारात्मक कार्रवाई तात्कालिक लाभ देकर यह आभास बेशक दिला देती हो कि इस व्यवस्था के भीतर ही, यानि इस व्यवस्था को बनाए रखते हुए भी, इन रोग-रूपी संकटों से मुक्ति दिलाई जा सकती है. यह सामान्य समझ की बात है कि रोग के कारण यदि 'नींव' में निहित हों तो दीवारों के रंग-रोगन से 'भवन' (अधिरचना) को स्थायी तौर पर रोगमुक्त नहीं किया जा सकता. पर ज़ाहिर है, कि यह लड़ाई चूंकि लंबी है और कष्टसाध्य भी, इसलिए रोग के लक्षणों पर चोट करने वाले लोग/समूह जनता को ललचाने/लुभाने/आकृष्ट करने लग जाते हैं. जो लोग मार्क्स की दृष्टि के क़ायल हैं, कम-से-कम उन्हें तो आधार-अधिरचना के अंतर्संबंधों के आलोक में ही रोज़मर्रा की समस्याओं और उनसे मुक्ति पाने के तरीकों में फिर से आस्था व्यक्त करनी चाहिए.

किन्हीं तकनीकी कारणों से हम इसका वह हिंदी अनुवाद नहीं दे पा रहे हैं. जैसे ही संभव हो पाएगा, उसे उपलब्ध कराने की कोशिश करेंगे.

Interview with Karl Marx, head of L'Internationale
By R. Landor, New York World, 18 July 1871,
reprinted Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly, 12 August 1871.

London, July 3 -- You have asked me to find out something about the International Association, and I have tried to do so. The enterprise is a difficult one just now. London is indisputably the headquarters of the Association, but the English people have got a scare, and smell International in everything as King James smelled gunpowder after the famous plot. The consciousness of the Society has naturally increased with the suspiciousness of the public; and if those who guide it have a secret to keep, they are of the stamp of men who keep a secret well. I have called on two of their leading members, have talked with one freely, and I here give you the substance of my conversation. I have satisfied myself of one thing, that it is a society of genuine workingmen, but that these workmen are directed by social and political theories of another class. One man whom I saw, a leading member of the Council, was sitting at his workman's bench during our interview, and left off talking to me from time to time to receive a complaint, delivered in no courteous tone, from one of the many little masters in the neighborhood who employed him. I have heard this same man make eloquent speeches in public inspired in every passage with the energy of hate toward the classes that call themselves his rulers. I understood the speeches after this glimpse at the domestic life of the orator. He must have felt that he had brains enough to have organized a working government, and yet here he was obliged to devote his life to the most revolting taskwork of a mechanical profession. He was proud and sensitive, and yet at every turn he had to return a bow for a grunt and a smile for a command that stood on about the same level in the scale of civility with a huntsman's call to his dog. This man helped me to a glimpse of one side of the nature of the International, the result of Labor Against Capital of the workman who produces against the middleman who enjoys. Here was the hand that would smite hard when the time came, and as to the head that plans, I think I saw that too, in my interview with Dr. Karl Marx.


Dr. Karl Marx is a German doctor of philosophy, with a German breadth of knowledge derived both from observation of the living world and from books. I should conclude that he has never been a worker in the ordinary sense of the term. His surroundings and appearance are those of a well-to-do man of the middle class. The drawing room into which I was ushered on the night of the interview would have formed very comfortable quarters for a thriving stockbroker who had made his competence and was now beginning to make his fortune. It was comfort personified, the apartment of a man of taste of easy means, but with nothing in it peculiarly characteristic of its owner. A fine album of Rhine views on the table, however, gave a clue to his nationality. I peered cautiously into the vase on the sidetable for a bomb. I sniffed for petroleum, but the smell was the smell of roses. I crept back stealthily to my seat, and moodily awaited the worst.


He has entered and greeted me cordially, and we are sitting face to face. Yes, I am tete-a-tete with the revolution incarnate, with the real founder and guiding spirit of the International Society, with the author of the address in which capital was told that is it warred on labor, it must expect to have its house burned down about its ears -- in a word, with the Apologist for the Commune of Paris. Do you remember the bust of Socrates? The man who died rather than profess his belief in the Gods of the time -- the man with the fine sweep of profile for the forehead running meanly at the end into a little snub, curled-up feature, like a bisected pothook, that formed the nose. Take this bust in your mind's eye, color the beard black, dashing it here and there with puffs of gray; clap the head thus made on a portly body of the middle height, and the Doctor is before you. Throw a veil over the upper part of the face, and you might be in the company of a born vestryman. Reveal the essential feature, the immense brown, and you know at once that you have to deal with that most formidable of all composite individual forces -- a dreamer who thinks, a thinker who dreams.


I went straight to my business. The world, I said, seemed to be in the dark about the International, hating it very much, but not able to say clearly what thing it hated. Some, who professed to have peered further into the gloom than their neighbors, declared that they had made out a sort of Janus figure with a fair, honest workman's smile on one of its faces, and on the other, a murderous conspirator's scowl. Would he light up the case of mystery in which theory dwelt?


The professor laughed, chuckled a little I fancied, at the thought that we were so frightened of him. "There is no mystery to clear up, dear sir," he began, in a very polished form of the Hans Breitmann dialect, "except perhaps the mystery of human stupidity in those who perpetually ignore the fact that out Association is a public one, and that the fullest reports of its proceedings are published for all who care to read them. You may buy our rules for a penny, and a shilling laid out in pamphlets will teach you almost as much about us as we know ourselves.


R. [Landor]: Almost -- yes, perhaps so; but will not the something I shall not know constitute the all-important reservation? To be quite frank with you, and to put the case as it strikes an outside observer, this general claim of depreciation of you must mean something more than the ignorant ill will of the multitude. And it is still pertinent to ask, even after what you have told me, what is the International Society?


Dr. M.: You have only to look at the individuals of which it is composed -- workmen.


R.: Yes, but the soldier need be no exponent of the statecraft that sets him in motion. I know some of your members, and I can believe that they are not of the stuff of which conspirators are made. Besides, a secret shared by a million men would be no secret at all. But what if these were only the instruments in the hands of a bold, and, I hope you will forgive me for adding, not overscrupulous conclave?


Dr. M.: There is nothing to prove.


R.: The last Paris insurrection?


Dr. M.: I demand firstly the proof that there was any plot at all -- that anything happened that was not the legitimate effect of the circumstances of the moment; or the plot granted, I demand the proofs of the participation in it of the International Association.


R.: The presence of the communal body of so many members of the Association.


Dr. M.: Then it was a plot of the Freemasons, too, for their share in the work as individuals was by no means a slight one. I should not be surprised, indeed, to find the Pope setting down the whole insurrection to their account. But try another explanation. The insurrection in Paris was made by the workmen of Paris. The ablest of the workmen must necessarily have been its leaders and administration, but the ablest of the workmen happen also to be members of the International Association. Yet, the Association, as such, may be in no way responsible for their action.


R.: It will seem otherwise to the world. People talk of secret instruction from London, and even grants of money. Can it be affirmed that the alleged openness of the Association's proceedings precludes all secrecy of communication?


Dr. M.: What association ever formed carried on its work without private as well as public agencies? But to talk of secret instruction from London, as of decrees in the matter of faith and morals from some centre of papal domination and intrigue, is wholly to misconceive the nature of the International. This would imply a centralized form of government for the International, whereas the real form is designedly that which gives the greatest play to local energy and independence. In fact, the International is not properly a government for the working class at all. It is a bond of union rather than a controlling force.


R.: And of union to what end?


Dr. M.: The economical emancipation of the working class by the conquest of political power. The use of that political power to the attainment of social ends. It is necessary that our aims should be thus comprehensive to include every form of working-class activity. To have made them of a special character would have been to adapt them to the needs of one section -- one nation of workmen alone. But how could all men be asked to unite to further the objects of a few? To have done that, the Association must have forfeited its title to International. The Association does not dictate the form of political movements; it only requires a pledge as to their end. It is a network of affiliated societies spreading all over the world of labor. In each part of the world, some special aspect of the problem presents itself, and the workmen there address themselves to its consideration in their own way. Combinations among workmen cannot be absolutely identical in detail in Newcastle and in Barcelona, in London and in Berlin. In England, for instance, the way to show political power lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work. In France, a hundred laws of repression and a mortal antagonism between classes seem to necessitate the violent solution of social war. The choices of that solution is the affair of the working classes of that country. The International does not presume to dictate in the matter and hardly to advise. But to every movement it accords its sympathy and its aid within the limits assigned by its own laws.


R.: And what is the nature of that aid?


Dr. M.: To give an example, one of the commonest forms of the movement for emancipation is that of strikes. Formerly, when a strike took place in one country, it was defeated by the importation of workmen from another. The International has nearly stopped all that. It receives information of the intended strike, it spreads that information among its members, who at once see that for them the seat of the struggle must be forbidden ground. The masters are thus left alone to reckon with their men. In most cases, the men require no other aid than that. Their own subscriptions, or those of the societies to which they are more immediately affiliated, supply them with funds, but should the pressure upon them become too heavy, and the strike be one of which the Association approves, their necessities are supplied out of the common purse. By these means, a strike of the cigar makers of Barcelona was brought to a victorious issue the other day. But the Society has not interest in strikes, though it supports them under certain conditions. It cannot possibly gain by them in a pecuniary point of view, but it may easily lose. Let us sum it all up in a word. The working classes remain poor amid the increase of wealth, wretched amid the increase of luxury. Their material privation dwarfs their moral as well as their physical stature. They cannot rely on others for a remedy. It has become then with them an imperative necessity to take their own case in hand. They must revive the relations between themselves and the capitalists and landlords, and that means they must transform society. This is the general end of every known workmen's organization; land and labor leagues, trade and friendly societies, co-operative production are but means toward it. To establish a perfect solidarity between these organizations is the business of the International Association. Its influence is beginning to be felt everywhere. Two papers spread its views in Spain, three in Germany, the same number in Austria and in Holland, six in Belgium, and six in Switzerland. And now that I have told you what the International is, you may, perhaps, be in a position to form your own opinion as to its pretended plots.


R.: And Mazzini, is he a member of your body?


Dr. M.: (laughing) Ah, no. We should have made but little progress if we had not got beyond the range of his ideas.


R.: You surprise me. I should certainly have thought that he represented most advanced views.


Dr. M.: He represents nothing better than the old idea of a middle-class republic. We want no part of the middle class. He has fallen as far to the rear of the modern movement as the German professors, who, nevertheless, are still considered in Europe as the apostles of the cultured democratism of the future. They were so, at one time -- before '48, perhaps, when the German middle class, in the English sense, had scarcely attained its proper development. But now they have gone over bodily to the reaction, and the proletariat knows them no more.


R.: Some people have thought they saw signs of a positivist element in your organization.


Dr. M.: No such thing. We have positivists among us, and others not of our body who work as well. But this is not by virtue of their philosophy, which will have nothing to do with popular government, as we understand it, and which seeks only to put a new hierarchy in place of the old one.


R.: It seems to me, then, that the leaders of the new international movement have had to form a philosophy as well as an association themselves.


Dr. M.: Precisely. It is hardly likely, for instance, that we could hope to prosper in our war against capital if we derive our tactics, say, from the political economy of Mill. He has traced one kind of relationship between labor and capital. We hope to show that it is possible to establish another.


R.: And the United States?


Dr. M.: The chief concerns of our activity are for the present among the old societies of Europe. Many circumstances have hitherto tended to prevent the labor problem from assuming an all-absorbing importance in the United States. But they are rapidly disappearing, and it is rapidly coming to the front there with the growth, as in Europe, of a laboring class distinct from the rest of the community and divorced from capital.


R.: It would seem that in this country the hoped-for solution, whatever it may be, will be attained without the violent means of revolution. The English system of agitating by platform and press, until minorities become converted into majorities, is a hopeful sign.


Dr. M.: I am not so sanguine on that point as you. The English middle class has always shown itself willing enough to accept the verdict of the majority, so long as it enjoyed the monopoly of the voting power. But, mark me, as soon as it finds itself outvoted on what it considers vital questions, we shall see here a new slaveowners's war.


I have given you, as well as I can remember them, the heads of my conversation with this remarkable man. I shall leave you to form your own conclusions. Whatever may be said for or against the probability of its complicity with the movement of the Commune, we may be assured that in the International Association, the civilized world has a new power in its midst, with which it must soon come to a reckoning for good or ill.

क्रांति पूरा एक राष्ट्र करता है, केवल एक पार्टी नहीं

कार्ल मार्क्स का यह महत्त्वपूर्ण साक्षात्कार हमने 'क्यों' 6-7, मई-अगस्त, 1974 में प्रकाशित किया था. इसका अनुवाद डॉ. मैनेजर पांडेय ने किया था. स्कैनिंग करके देने पर वह सहज पठनीय नहीं हो रहा था, इसलिए हम वह अनुवाद नहीं दे पा रहे हैं. जब कभी संभव होगा तो देने का प्रयास करेंगे. कई मित्रों ने अगस्त के महीने में उनसे किए गए हमारे वादे का बार-बार स्मरण कराये जाने पर इसे इसके मूल रूप में ही दे पा रहे हैं. 

यह साक्षात्कार ख़ासकर इसलिए बहुत महत्त्वपूर्ण बन जाता है क्योंकि यह आम कम्युनिस्ट कार्यकर्ता की इस समझ को भी दुरुस्त करता है कि 'क्रांति एक पार्टी करती है.' इस लिहाज से, ध्यान से देखें तो इसका शीर्षक ही अपने आप में बेहद अर्थगर्भित बन जाता है. यह सही है कि क्रांति का हरावल दस्ता मजदूर-किसानों (मेहनतकशों) की संगठित शक्ति से निर्मित होता है तथा कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी के नेतृत्व में क्रांति को संभव बनाता है. आज जिस दौर से हम गुज़र रहे हैं, ख़ासकर भारत के सन्दर्भ में बात करें तो, स्थापित कम्युनिस्ट पार्टियां तथा अन्य छोटे-बड़े कम्युनिस्ट समूह क्रांति लेन के अपने इस ऐतिहासिक कार्यभार को भुला चुके हैं. पर भुलाई गई चीज़ों की याद दिलाना ही तो ज़रूरी और महत्त्वपूर्ण होता है.

Interview with Karl Marx by H.

Chicago Tribune, January 5 1879

London, December 18 [1878] – In a little villa at Haverstock Hill, the northwest portion of London, lives Karl Marx, the cornerstone of modern socialism. He was exiled from his native country – Germany – in 1844, for propagating revolutionary theories. In 1848, he returned, but in a few months was again exiled. He then took up his abode in Paris, but his political theories procured his expulsion from that city in 1849, and since that year his headquarters have been in London. His convictions have caused him trouble from the beginning. Judging from the appearance of his home, they certainly have not brought him affluence. Persistently during all these years he has advocated his views with an earnestness which undoubtedly springs from a firm belief in them, and, however much we may deprecate their propagation, we cannot but respect to a certain extent the self-denial of the now venerable exile.

Our correspondent has called upon him twice or thrice, and each time the Doctor was found in his library, with a book in one hand and a cigarette in the other. He must be over seventy years of age. His physique is well knit, massive, erect. He has the head of a man of intellect, and the features of a cultivated Jew. His hair and beard are long, and iron-gray in color. His eyes are glittering black, shaded by a pair of bushy eyebrows. To a stranger he shows extreme caution. A foreigner can generally gain admission; but the ancient-looking German woman [Helene Demuth] who waits upon visitors has instructions to admit none who hail from the Fatherland, unless they bring letters of introduction. Once into his library, however, and having fixed his one eyeglass in the corner of his eye, in order to take your intellectual breadth and depth, so to speak, he loses that self-restraint, and unfolds to you a knowledge of men and things throughout the world apt to interest one. And his conversation does not run in one groove, but is as varied as are the volumes upon his library shelves. A man can generally be judged by the books he reads, and you can form your own conclusions when I tell you a casual glance revealed Shakespeare, Dickens, Thackeray, Moliere, Racine, Montaigne, Bacon, Goethe, Voltaire, Paine; English, American, French blue books; works political and philosophical in Russian, German, Spanish, Italian, etc., etc. During my conversation I was struck with

His Intimacy with American Questions which have been uppermost during the past twenty years. His knowledge of them, and the surprising accuracy with which he criticized our national and state legislation, impressed upon my mind the fact that he must have derived his information from inside sources. But, indeed, this knowledge is not confined to America, but is spread over the face of Europe. When speaking of his hobby – socialism – he does not indulge in those melodramatic flights generally attributed to him, but dwells upon his utopian plans for “the emancipation of the human race” with a gravity and an earnestness indicating a firm conviction in the realization of his theories, if not in this century, at least in the next.

Perhaps Dr. Karl Marx is better known in America as the author of Capital, and the founder of the International Society, or at least its most prominent pillar. In the interview which follows, you will see what he says of this Society as it at present exists. However, in the meantime I will give you a few extracts from the printed general rules of The International Society published in 1871, by order of the General Council, from which you can form an impartial judgment of its aims and ends. The Preamble sets forth “that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves; that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule; that the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor – that is, the sources of life – lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence; that all efforts aiming at” the universal emancipation of the working classes “have hitherto failed from want of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country,” and the Preamble calls for “the immediate combination of the still-disconnected movements.” It goes on to say that the International Association acknowledges “no rights without duties, no duties without rights” – thus making every member a worker. the Association was formed at London “to afford a central medium of communication and cooperation between the workingmen’s societies in the different countries,” aiming at the same end, namely: “the protection, advancement, and complete emancipation of the working classes.” “Each member,” the document further says, “of the International Association, on removing his domicile from one country to another, will receive the fraternal support of the associated workingmen."

The Society Consists of a general Congress, which meets annually, a general Council, which forms “an international agency between the different national and local groups of the Association, so that the workingmen in one country can be constantly informed of the movements of their class in every other country." This Council receives and acts upon the applications of new branches or sections to join the International, decides differences arising between the sections, and, in fact, to use an American phrase, “runs the machine." The expenses of the General Council are defrayed by an annual contribution of an English penny per member. Then come the federal councils or committees, and local sections, in the various countries. The federal councils are bound to send one report at least every month to the General Council, and every three months a report on the administration and financial state of their respective branches. whenever attacks against the International are published, the nearest branch or committee is bound to send at once a copy of such publication to the General Council. The formation of female branches among the working classes is recommended.

The General Council comprises the following: R. Applegarth, M.T. Boon, Frederick Bradnick, G.H. Buttery, E. Delahaye, Eugene Dupont (on mission), William Hales, G. Harris, Hurliman, Jules Johannard, Harriet Law, Frederick Lessner, Lochner, Charles Longuet, C. Martin, Zevy Maurice, Henry Mayo, George Milner, Charles Murray, Pfander, John Pach, Ruhl Sadler, Cowell Stepney, Alfred Taylor, W. Townshend, E. Vaillant, John Weston. The corresponding secretaries for the various countries are: Leo Frankel, for Austria and Hungary; A. Herman, Belgium; T. Mottershead, Denmark; A. Serrailler, France; Karl Marx, Germany and Russia; Charles Rochat, Holland; J.P. McDonell, Ireland; Frederick Engels, Italy and Spain; Walery Wroblewski, Poland; Hermann Jung, Switzerland; J.G. Eccarius, United States; Le Moussu, for French branches of United States.

During my visit to Dr. Marx, I alluded to the platform given by J.C. Bancroft Davis in his official report of 1877 as the clearest and most concise exposition of socialism that I had seen. He said it was taken from the report of the socialist reunion at Gotha, Germany, in May, 1875. The translation was incorrect, he said, and he Volunteered Corrections which I append as he dictated:

First: Universal, direct, and secret suffrage for all males over twenty years, for all elections, municipal and state.

Second: Direct legislation by the people. War and peace to be made by direct popular vote.

Third: Universal obligation to militia duty. No standing army.

Fourth: Abolition of all special legislation regarding press laws and public meetings.

Fifth: Legal remedies free of expense. Legal proceedings to be conducted by the people.

Sixth: Education to be by the state – general, obligatory, and free. Freedom of science and religion.

Seventh: All indirect taxes to be abolished. Money to be raised for state and municipal purposes by direct progressive income tax.

Eighth: Freedom of combination among the working classes.

Ninth: The legal day of labor for men to be defined. The work of women to be limited, and that of children to be abolished.

Tenth: Sanitary laws for the protection of life and health of laborers, and regulation of their dwelling and places of labor, to be enforced by persons selected by them.

Eleventh: Suitable provision respecting prison labor. In Mr. Bancroft Davis’ report there is

A Twelfth Clause, the most important of all, which reads: “State aid and credit for industrial societies, under democratic direction.” I asked the Doctor why he omitted this, and he replied:

“When the reunion took place at Gotha, in 1875, there existed a division among the Social Democrats. The one wing were partisans of Lassalle, the others those who had accepted in general the program of the International organization, and were called the Eisenach party. The twelfth point was not placed on the platform, but placed in the general introduction by way of concession to the Lassallians. Afterwards it was never spoken of. Mr. Davis does not say that is was placed in the program as a compromise having no particular significance, but gravely puts it in as one of the cardinal principles of the program.”

“But,” I said, “socialists generally look upon the transformation of the means of labor into the common property of society as the grand climax of the movement.”

“Yes; we say that this will be the outcome of the movement, but it will be a question of time, of education, and the institution of higher social status.”

“This platform,” I remarked, “applies only to Germany and one or two other countries.”

“Ah!” he returned, “if you draw your conclusions from nothing but this, you know nothing of the activity of the party. Many of its points have no significance outside of Germany. Spain, Russia, England, and America have platforms suited to their peculiar difficulties. The only similarity in them is the end to be attained.”

“And that is the supremacy of labor?”

“That is the Emancipation of Labor”

“Do European socialists look upon the movement in America as a serious one?”

“Yes: it is the natural outcome of the country’s development. It has been said that the movement has been imported by foreigners. When labor movements became disagreeable in England, fifty years ago, the same thing was said; and that was long before socialism was spoken of. In American, since 1857, only has the labor movement become conspicuous. Then trade unions began to flourish; then trades assemblies were formed, in which the workers in different industries united; and after that came national labor unions. If you consider this chronological progress, you will see that socialism has sprung up in that country without the aid of foreigners, and was merely caused by the concentration of capital and the changed relations between the workmen and employers.”

“Now,” asked our correspondent, “what has socialism done so far?”

“Two things,” he returned. “Socialists have shown the general universal struggle between capital and labor – The Cosmopolitan Chapter in one word – and consequently tried to bring about an understanding between the workmen in the different countries, which became more necessary as the capitalists became more cosmopolitan in hiring labor, pitting foreign against native labor not only in America, but in England, France, and Germany. International relations sprang up at once between workingmen in the three different countries, showing that socialism was not merely a local, but an international problem, to be solved by the international action of workmen. The working classes move spontaneously, without knowing what the ends of the movement will be. The socialists invent no movement, but merely tell the workmen what its character and its ends will be.”

“Which means the overthrowing of the present social system,” I interrupted.

“This system of land and capital in the hands of employers, on the one hand,” he continued, “and the mere working power in the hands of the laborers to sell a commodity, we claim is merely a historical phase, which will pass away and give place to A Higher Social Condition.

We see everywhere a division of society. The antagonism of the two classes goes hand in hand with the development of the industrial resources of modern countries. From a socialistic standpoint the means already exist to revolutionize the present historical phase. Upon trade unions, in many countries, have been built political organizations. In America the need of an independent workingmen’s party has been made manifest. They can no longer trust politicians. Rings and cliques have seized upon the legislatures, and politics has been made a trade. But America is not alone in this, only its people are more decisive than Europeans. Things come to the surface quicker. There is less cant and hypocrisy that there is on this side of the ocean.”

I asked him to give me a reason for the rapid growth of the socialistic party in Germany, when he replied:

“The present socialistic party came last. Theirs was not the utopian scheme which made headway in France and England. The German mind is given to theorizing, more than that of other peoples. From previous experience the Germans evolved something practical. This modern capitalistic system, you must recollect, is quite new in Germany in comparison to other states. Questions were raised which had become almost antiquated in France and England, and political influences to which these states had yielded sprang into life when the working classes of Germany had become imbued with socialistic theories. therefore, from the beginning almost of modern industrial development, they have formed an Independent Political Party.

They had their own representatives in the German parliament. There was no party to oppose the policy of the government, and this devolved upon them. To trace the course of the party would take a long time; but I may say this: that, if the middle classes of Germany were not the greatest cowards, distinct from the middle classes of America and England, all the political work against the government should have been done by them.”

I asked him a question regarding the numerical strength of the Lassallians in the ranks of the Internationalists.

“The party of Lassalle,” he replied, “does not exist. Of course there are some believers in our ranks, but the number is small. Lassalle anticipated our general principles. When he commenced to move after the reaction of 1848, he fancied that he could more successfully revive the movement by advocating cooperation of the workingmen in industrial enterprises. It was to stir them into activity. He looked upon this merely as a means to the real end of the movement. I have letters from him to this effect.”

“You would call it his nostrum?”

“Exactly. He called upon Bismarck, told him what he designed, and Bismarck encouraged Lassalle’s course at that time in every possible way.”

“What was his object?”

“He wished to use the working classes as a set-off against the middle classes who instigated the troubles of 1848.”

“It is said that you are the head and front of socialism, Doctor, and from your villa here pull the wires of all the associations, revolutions, etc., now going on. What do you say about it?”

The old gentleman smiled: “I know it.”

“It Is Very Absurd yet it has a comic side. For two months previous to the attempt of Hoedel, Bismarck complained in his North German Gazette that I was in league with Father Beck, the leader of the Jesuit movement, and that we were keeping the socialist movement in such a condition that he could do nothing with it.”

“But your International Society in London directs the movement?”

“The International Society has outlived its usefulness and exists no longer. It did exist and direct the movement; but the growth of socialism of late years has been so great that its existence has become unnecessary. Newspapers have been started in the various countries. These are interchanged. That is about the only connection the parties in the different countries have with one another. The International Society, in the first instance, was created to bring the workmen together, and show the advisability of effecting organization among their various nationalities. The interests of each party in the different countries have no similarity. This specter of the Internationalist leaders sitting at London is a mere invention. It is true that we dictated to foreign societies when the Internationalist organization was first accomplished. We were forced to exclude some sections in New York, among them one in which Madam Woodhull was conspicuous. that was in 1871. there are several American politicians – I will not name them – who wish to trade in the movement. They are well known to American socialists.”

“You and your followers, Dr. Marx, have been credited with all sorts of incendiary speeches against religion. Of course you would like to see the whole system destroyed, root and branch.”

“We know,” he replied after a moment’s hesitation, “that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as socialism grows, Religion Will Disappear.

Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part.”

“The Reverend Joseph Cook, of Boston – you know him –”

“We have heard of him, a very badly informed man upon the subject of socialism.”

“In a lecture lately upon the subject, he said, ‘Karl Marx is credited now with saying that, in the United States, and in Great Britain, and perhaps in France, a reform of labor will occur without bloody revolution, but that blood must be shed in Germany, and in Russia, and in Italy, and in Austria.’”

“No socialist,” remarked the Doctor, smiling, “need predict that there will be a bloody revolution in Russia, Germany, Austria, and possibly Italy if the Italians keep on in the policy they are now pursuing. The deeds of the French Revolution may be enacted again in those countries. That is apparent to any political student. But those revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation”.

“The reverend gentleman alluded to,” I remarked, “gave an extract from a letter which he said you addressed to the Communists of Paris in 1871. Here it is:

‘We are as yet but 3,000,000 at most. In twenty years we shall be 50,000,000 – 100,000,000 perhaps. Then the world will belong to us, for it will be not only Paris, Lyon, Marseilles, which will rise against odious capital, but Berlin, Munich, Dresden, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Brussels, St. Petersburg, New York – in short, the whole world. And before this new insurrection, such as history has not yet known, the past will disappear like a hideous nightmare; for the popular conflagration, kindled at a hundred points at once, will destroy even its memory!’

Now, Doctor, I suppose you admit the authorship of that extract?”

“I never wrote a word of it. I never write Such Melodramatic Nonsense.

I am very careful what I do write. That was put in Le Figaro, over my signature, about that time. There were hundreds of the same kind of letters flying about them. I wrote to the London Times and declared they were forgeries; but if I denied everything that has been said and written of me, I would require a score of secretaries.”

“But you have written in sympathy with the Paris Communists?”

“Certainly I have, in consideration of what was written of them in leading articles; but the correspondence from Paris in English papers is quite sufficient to refute the blunders propagated in editorials. The Commune killed only about sixty people; Marshal MacMahon and his slaughtering army killed over 60,000. There has never been a movement so slandered as that of the Commune.”

“Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?”

“No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.

“The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination,” he went on to say, “it is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.”

I asked Dr. Marx What He Thought of Bismarck.

He replied that “Napoleon was considered a genius until he fell; then he was called a fool. Bismarck will follow in his wake. He began by building up a despotism under the plea of unification. his course has been plain to all. The last move is but an attempted imitation of a coup d’etat; but it will fail. The socialists of Germany, as of France, protested against the war of 1870 as merely dynastic. They issued manifestoes foretelling the German people, if they allowed the pretended war of defense to be turned into a war of conquest, they would be punished by the establishment of military despotism and the ruthless oppression of the productive masses. The Social-Democratic party in Germany, thereupon holding meetings and publishing manifestoes for an honorable peace with France, were at once prosecuted by the Prussian Government, and many of the leaders imprisoned. Still their deputies alone dared to protest, and very vigorously too, in the German Reichstag, against the forcible annexation of French provinces. However, Bismarck carried his policy by force, and people spoke of the genius of a Bismarck. The war was fought, and when he could make no conquests, he was called upon for original ideas, and he has signally failed. The people began to lose faith in him. His popularity was on the wane. He needs money, and the state needs it. Under a sham constitution he has taxed the people for his military and unification plans until he can tax them no longer, and now he seeks to do it with no constitution at all. For the purpose of levying as he chooses, he has raised the ghost of socialism, and has done everything in his power To Create an Emeute.”

“You have continual advice from Berlin?”

“Yes,” he said; “my friends keep me well advised. It is in a perfectly quiet state, and Bismarck is disappointed. He has expelled forty-eight prominent men – among them Deputies Hasselman and Fritsche and Rackow, Bauman, and Adler, of the Freie Presse. These men kept the workmen of Berlin quiet. Bismarck knew this. He also knew that there were 75,000 workmen in that city upon the verge of starvation. Once those leaders were gone, he was confident that the mob would rise, and that would be the cue for a carnival of slaughter. The screws would then be put upon the whole German Empire; his petty theory of blood and iron would then have full sway, and taxation could be levied to any extent. So far no emeute has occurred, and he stands today confounded at the situation and the ridicule of all statesmen.”

हरीश करमचंदाणी की सात छोटी कविताएं: 'समय कैसा भी हो' से

हरीश करमचंदाणी के दो संग्रह आए हैं अभी तक. पहला - "पिता बोले थे", १९९२ में, और दूसरा,"समय कैसा भी हो" अभी-अभी छपकर आया है. मित्रों के साक्ष्य में इसका लोकार्पण भी अभी होना बाक़ी है. उन्नीस बरस में दो संग्रह. हरीश जैसे शांत जीवन में हैं, वैसे ही कविता में भी हैं. जो भी कहना है, बिना स्वर ऊंचा किए हुए कहते हैं, यद्यपि जो कहते हैं वह अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण होता है. आत्म-प्रचार से उतनी दूरी बनाए रखना आसान नहीं होता जितनी हरीश ने सहज रूप से बना रखी है. हम अक्सर देखते  हैं, किसी कवि का एक संग्रह छप जाता है, दो समीक्षाएं ठीक-ठाक सी आ जाती हैं, तो उसे किसी न किसी तरह से चर्चा में बनाए रखने के लिए तरह तरह के करतब किए जाते हैं. हरीश फ़ेसबुक पर हैं, पर छटे-चौमासे एक-दो कविताएं ही दिखाई पड़ती हैं, बस.

इन कविताओं में विविधता तो हम पाते ही हैं, यह देखना बेहद प्रीतिकर लगता है कि हमारे इर्दगिर्द की सामान्य सी घटनाएं-स्थितियां हरीश को कविता का कच्चा माल उपलब्ध करा देती हैं, जिसे वह बेहद सादगी से कविता में तब्दील कर देते हैं: जीवन-अनुभव को सादगी से काव्य-अनुभव में बदल देते हैं. हरीश मनुष्य और प्रकृति के पक्ष में खड़े आशावादी कवि हैं. मनुष्य और कविता दोनों पर गहराते संकट से वह बाखबर हैं, और जानते हैं कि मनुष्य बचेगा तभी तो कविता भी बच पाएगी.

उनकी कविताओं में, मनुष्य-विरोधी राजनीति की शिनाख्त के संकेत भी मिलते हैं, हालांकि वह शिनाख्तगी का यह काम बड़े महीन तरीक़े से करते हैं, बिना 'लाउड' हुए. हरीश कविता की आतंरिक लय को बनाए रखते हैं. शिल्पगत अलंकरण, भाषिक नक्क़ाशी और जादुई पदावली से अचक-पचक बचते हुए वह कविता की 'कविताई' को बनाए-बचाए रखते हैं. किसी भी कवि के लिए यह उपलब्धि कम नहीं होती.

दोष

नक्शा बहुत साफ़ था

मेरे मन में था 

मैं चाहता था वह निर्दोष साबित हो 

क्योंकि वह निर्दोष था 

और इसीलिए यह साबित करना 

बहुत मुश्किल था.

चौकीदार 

अंधेरे और सन्नाटे को चीरती 

गूंजती है आवाज़

जागते रहो.

यह आवाज़ सिर्फ़ वे सुनते हैं

जो जाग रहे होते हैं

सोये हुए लोग सोये ही रहते हैं.

सोचता हूं 

सोये हुओं को जगाने को जो कहेगा

वह आदमी कब आएगा?

उदास 

इस तरह तो मत होना उदास 

कि मैं पस्त हो जाऊं 

और सोच ही न सकूं 

कुछ भी अच्छा और आशा से भरा 

इस तरह तो मत होना उदास 

कि हंस ही न सकें इस बार 

जिस बात पर दुहरे हुए थे

हंसी के मारे पिछली बार.

मत होना 

मत होना 

मत होना उदास 

कि उदासी बुरी होती है

उसके चेहरे पर तो बहुत 

जिसने दुख से लड़ी हो लड़ाई हँसते-हँसते.

मनुष्य के पक्ष में 

उसके चेहरे पर क़ायम रहे हंसी

इस खातिर 

जलते हुए ब्रह्मांड की तुलना में

चाहूंगा हो मेरे पास एक मनुष्य भर छांह 

एक सिकुड़ती हुई दुनिया 

एक खिलते हुए फूल के सामने दयनीय है

पहाड़ की चोटी पर टिका सूर्य 

फिसल कर गिर न पड़े 

मैं सोचता हूं उसे भी ज़रूरत है 

किसी सहारे की

आहट किए बगैर

जतलाए बिना 

यही तो कर रहा है मनुष्य 

सदियों से.

एक आस्तिक की डायरी से 

एक दिन

मैंने सोचा कि ईश्वर से मिलूंगा

और खूब बात करूंगा उससे.

यह भी कि उसके सामने विनीत रहने वाले 

वास्तव में कितने क्रूर और निर्मम हैं

कि डर और आतंक फैला रखा है उन्होंने 

भ्रष्टाचार तो वे अधिकार भाव से करते हैं

यह भी कि सच्चे और ईमानदार लोग ज़्यादा दुखी हैं 

पीड़ित हैं और डरे हुए भी.

कि बहुत-बहुत सी बातें बताऊंगा ईश्वर को

जो शायद उसे मालूम ही नहीं रहीं होंगी

यह सब सोचा मैंने 

और तय किया कि एक दिन मैं 

पक्का ही पक्का मिलूंगा 

ईश्वर से

और मैं ईश्वर से मिलता 

उससे पहले ही एक ख्याल आया

मुझ जैसे साधारण आदमी को ये सब पता है

और उस 'शक्तिमान' को पता ही नहीं 

क्या यह मुमकिन है?

तो कहीं ईश्वर भी...

और दहल गया मैं.

  

रथ के पीछे

रथ के गुज़र जाने के बाद

उड़ रही थी धूल

धुआं फैल गया था चारों ओर

गंध तीखी आ रही थी

बारूद की या रक्त की

हां रथ जा चुका था आगे

विजय पताका फहराता हुआ

छोड़कर गर्द-गुबार गम और धुआं

एक औरत कच्ची पगडण्डी पर सुबकते हुए

चिंतातुर थी अपने तरुण बेटे के लिए

जो चला गया था रथ के पीछे-पीछे

मानो नींद में था

धूल और धुएं से घिरा 

हांफता दौड़ता उन्माद का हिस्सा बनता

किसी और की खातिर

किसी और का हथियार बनता 

किसी और के बेटे को 

अपना शत्रु मानता

खुद को मरने मारने को विवश

और अभिशप्त

हां वह तरुण फिर न लौटेगा 

जानती है मां 

अनगिनत बच्चे खो चुकी है मां 

सदियों से 

रथ पर आसीन सुरक्षित विजेता के लिए.

पेड़

पेड़ कट रहा था 

और मेरे पास शब्द नहीं थे

लकड़हारे के विरुद्ध

काट रहा था वह तो ठेकेदार के लिए

मैंने कनखियों से मगर गौर से देखा उसे

लगा 

वह खुद भी कट रहा था साथ साथ

और उसका कटना 

पेड़ के कटकर गिर जाने के बाद भी 

जारी था.

शेक्‍सपीयर और आज का समय

शेक्सपीयर के नाटक Timon Of Athens की ये बहु-उद्धृत पंक्तियां मुझे केवल इसलिए प्रिय नहीं हैं कि ये प्रसिद्ध दार्शनिक कार्ल मार्क्स को बेहद प्रिय थीं. कार्ल मार्क्स ने बेशक इन्हें Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 में उद्धृत किया था. यों तो यह तथ्य भी सामान्य जानकारी के दायरे में है कि मार्क्स के परिवार में सब लोग शाम को बैठ कर अन्त्याक्षरी खेलते थे, जिसमें सिर्फ़ शेक्सपीयर की पंक्तियां ही सुनानी होती थीं. मुझे इन पंक्तियों ने न जाने कब से गिरफ़्त में ले रखा है ! शायद पचास साल से, जब पहली बार मैंने इन्हें पढ़ा था. पहली से पचासवीं बार कब निकल गई यह भी याद नहीं. शेक्सपीयर इन पंक्तियों में एक भविष्य-द्रष्टा (Prophet) के रूप में सामने आते हैं. यों हर बड़ा साहित्यकार अपने समय का अतिक्रमण करके अपनी प्रासंगिकता क़ायम करता है, पर इन पंक्तियों को ध्यान से पढ़ कर आप भी इस बात से सहमत होंगे कि 'काल का ऐसा अतिक्रमण' अत्यंत विरल है. 'सोना' एक धातु के रूप में और 'पैसे' - ' धन' (मुद्रा) - के रूप में आज कितना बलशाली हो गया है यह हम सब अपनी-अपनी तरह से जानते हैं. या कहें हमें जानना चाहिए. पर आज से साढ़े चार सौ साल पहले यह देख पाना कि पूंजीवाद की चरम अवस्था में यह (सोना) क्या-क्या गुल खिला सकता है, क़तई आसान काम नहीं था. इससे अंदाज़ लगाया जा सकता है कि शेक्सपीयर नवजागरण काल में, पूंजी की बीज-सामर्थ्य को, उसके विकसित रूप को कैसे प्रक्षेपित कर पाने की क्षमता से संपन्न-समृद्ध थे.
आखि़री पंक्ति तक पहुंचते-पहुंचते, आप देखेंगे कि शेक्‍सपीयर ''संसार पर हैवानों के राज'' की भविष्‍यवाणी करते हैं. ज़रा आज के वैश्विक दृश्‍य-पटल पर नज़र डालिए और देखिए कि राज किसका चल रहा है.

“Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold?
No, Gods, I am no idle votarist! ...
Thus much of this will make black white, foul fair,
Wrong right, base noble, old young, coward valiant.
... Why, this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides,
Pluck stout men’s pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed;
Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench: This is it
That makes the wappen’d widow wed again;
She, whom the spital-house and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put’st odds
Among the rout of nations...”

“O thou sweet king-killer, and dear divorce
‘Twixt natural son and sire! thou bright defiler
Of Hymen’s purest bed! thou valiant Mars!
Thou ever young, fresh, loved and delicate wooer
Whose blush doth thaw the consecrated snow
That lies on Dian’s lap! Thou visible God!
That solder’st close impossibilities,
And makest them kiss! That speak’st with every tongue,
To every purpose! O thou touch of hearts!
Think, thy slave man rebels, and by thy virtue
Set them into confounding odds, that beasts
May have the world in empire!”
 -Shakespeare, Timon of Athens

''सोना? पीला, चमचमाता, बहुमूल्‍य सोना?
नहीं, देवताओ, मैं नहीं झूठा उपासक!...
इतना-सा सोना बनाता स्‍याह को सफ़ेद, अनुचित को उचित,
निकृष्‍ट को उदात्‍त, वृद्ध को तरुण, कायर को नायक!
...यह
छीन लेता तुमसे तुम्‍हारे पुजारी और सेवक,
खींच लेता तकिये बलवानों के सिर के नीचे से:
यह पीत दास
जोड़ता-तोड़ता धर्मों को, अभिशप्‍तों को देता वरदान,
जीर्ण कोढ़ को बनाता उपास्‍य, दिलाता चोरों को सम्‍मान,
और पदवी, अवलम्‍ब, सभासदों के बीच स्‍थान:
यह क्रन्‍दन करती विध्‍ावा को फिर बना देता दुल्‍हन;
रिसते नासूर तथा अस्‍पताल भी भागें जिससे दूर,
कर देता उसे सुरभित, पुष्पित;
पीछे मुड़, अभिशप्‍त धरती, गणिका सारे जगत की,
कारण राष्‍ट्रों के युद्धों, वैमनस्‍य का...''

''राजाओं का मधुर हत्‍यारा!
बच्‍चों से पिता का नाता प्‍यार से तोड़ता तू,
दंपति की पवित्र शय्या का दूषणकर्ता,
शूरवीर युद्ध देवता, तू!
चिर तरुण, चिर नूतन,
प्रणय-पात्र, प्रणय-याचक सुकोमल,
डियान* की गोदी का पावन हिम
तेरी लज्‍जारुणिमा से जाता पिघल!
तू प्रत्‍यक्ष भगवान
असम्‍भव है जिन्‍हें करना संलग्‍न,
उन्‍हें देता तू जोड़, बाध्‍य कर देता
उन्‍हें लेने को एक दूसरे का चुम्‍बन!
हर उद्देश्‍य के लिए, हर भाषा बोलने वाला तू,
ओ हृदय को छूने वाले, ज़रा सोच यह,
दास तेरा करता विद्रोह, तेरे बूते पर
उनमें होता कलह, रक्‍तपात,
ताकि संसार पर हो जाये हैवानों का राज!''

*आखेट-देवी