JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN (1902-09), popularly called ‘Lok Nayak’ जयप्रकाश नारायण जिन्हें लोकप्रिय रूप से लोकनायक कहा जाता है, was one of the most prominent leaders and thinkers in modern India आधुनिक भारत के सर्वाधिक प्रसिद्ध नेताओं एवं विचारकों में से एक थे. He played a major role in the struggle for Independence. उन्होंने स्वतंत्रता के लिए संघर्ष में एक महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई, His struggle continued even after the country achieved Independence उनका संघर्ष देश की स्वतंत्रता के बाद भी जारी रहा. He played a major role in the socialist and sarvodaya movements उन्होंने समाजवादी और सर्वोदय आंदोलनों में एक प्रमुख भूमिका निभाई and finally in the movement against suppression of civil liberties (1974-77) और अंततः नागरिक स्वतंत्रता 1974-77 के दमन के विरुद्ध खिलाफत आंदोलन में में प्रमुख भूमिका निभाई, popularly known as the J.P. Movement.जोकि जेपी आंदोलन के नाम से प्रसिद्ध है, In this extract from Jayaprakash Nrayan: Selected Works, vol.2, जयप्रकाश नारायण के "सिलेक्टेड वर्क" संस्करण- 2 से लिए गए इस अंश में,
J.P. explores the changing connotations of nationality at different point of time. the meaning of nation and nationality depend heavily on the circumstances of the state and the structure of society. जेपी अलग-अलग समय पर राष्ट्रीयता के बदलते अर्थों की पड़ताल करते हैं। राष्ट्र और राष्ट्रीयता का अर्थ राज्य की परिस्थितियों और समाज की संरचना पर बहुत अधिक निर्भर करता है।
However, in ultimate analysis, हालांकि, अंतिम विश्लेषण में, it means that ‘the lower classes – the masses इसका अर्थ है किइसका मतलब है कि 'निम्न वर्ग-जनता बहुसंख्यक – should fight imperialism not to secure their own freedom exploitation को अपनी स्वतंत्रता के शोषण को सुरक्षित करने के लिए साम्राज्यवाद से नहीं लड़ना चाहिए।
but to enthrone the bourgeoisie and the landed magnates लेकिन पूंजीपति वर्ग और जमींदारों को सिंहासन पर बैठाने के लिए, who themselves do not participate in that fight जो स्वयं उस लड़ाई में भाग नहीं लेते हैं ; in the place of the imperial power. शाही सत्ता के स्थान पर।This unity can be maintained only at the cost of mass consciousness.’ जन चेतना की कीमत पर ही यह एकता कायम रखी जा सकती है।'
1.What is national unity? What is nation? What is nationalism?राष्ट्रीय एकता क्या है? राष्ट्र क्या है? राष्ट्रवाद क्या है?
2. Let us compare two notable events of our national history: ‘1857 and 1885.’ आइए हम अपने राष्ट्रीय इतिहास की दो उल्लेखनीय घटनाओं की तुलना करें: '1857 और 1885।' There were twenty eight years that separated those two events.उन दो घटनाओं को अलग करने वाले अट्ठाईस साल थे। Yet, they wrought an incredible change in ‘national’ out look. यद्यपि इन्होंने राष्ट्रीय दृष्टिकोण में अविश्वसनीय परिवर्तन किया था। 1857 witnessed an open and armed struggle for sovereign power; 1885 an act of humble petitioning. 1857 सत्ता पर अधिकार के लिए एक खुला और सशस्त्र संघर्ष देखा; 1885 विनम्र याचिका का एक अधिनियम।
3.From a struggle for sovereign power to prayer for a Royal Commission marks a great change. संप्रभु शक्ति के संघर्ष से लेकर शाही आयोग के लिए प्रार्थना करने तक एक महान परिवर्तन का प्रतीक है।Yet, the latter has been called ‘the beginning of the formulation of India’s demands.’ फिर भी, बाद वाले को 'भारत की मांगों के निर्माण की शुरुआत' कहा गया है।
4.If, however, both 1857 and 1885 represented national movement, it is obvious that nationalism means different things at different time. The difference lies not only in its objectives but also in its humble content. In 1857 feudal chiefs and their soldiers were the ‘nationalist’; in 1885, seventy-two gentleman extracted from the middle classes, including the cadre of retired governments servants.
5.These facts throw a flood of light on the problem of nationalism and national unity. Neither the feudal chiefs who fought in 1857 nor the baboo who founded the congress in 1885, comprised the whole national and stood for all the classes and groups within it. It would have been comic for the peasants in 1885 to have ‘united’ with the baboos in demanding ‘state’ in the councils and more jobs for the English-education! ( Perhaps it is not quite obvious even now that it is only slightly less comic today to expect the peasant to unite, again with the ‘baboos’, in fighting for an undefined Swaraj and a mysterious thing called the Motherland.)
6. Thus we see that a 'nation' does not in reality mean the whole nation, nor does nationalism comprise the interests of all the classes and groups within it. At different times different classes constitute the nation' and give expression to nationalism. What class or group would play this role at a given time depends upon the circumstances of history and the structure of society. It may often happen that the so-called national interest of the moment is actually against the real interests of the majority of the people. When the cry of 'the nation in danger' was raised in the General Election of 1931 in Great Britain, the purpose in reality was to stampede the people into voting for the perpetuation of British capitalism, standing as it did for their exploitation and economic bondage. To talk, therefore, of the nation as something undivided and whole, is to become victim to class propaganda.
7. The Indian is made up of princes, industrialists, bankers, merchants, peasants, labourers, etc. Nationalism does not mean the same thing to all the other. Nor is the manner in which they would fight for freedom, the same for all.
8. Let us take the princes. Their freedom means complete sovereignty which can be won only on the battlefield. But which of the princes, since 1857, is in a position to go to war for his sovereignty? It is clear that the princes must permanently remain vassals of British imperialism. This naturally ranges them against the national movement in as far as it opposes that imperialism. Here is the first br in national unity.
9. The landlords of India, as is well known, are largely the creation of British imperialism. The bigger landlords have always solidly stood with imperialism and have been its strongest props in the countryside, Nationalist has no meaning to these people-except jobs in the higher services; and if any political power is to be given to Indians on account of nationalist force gathering strength, then the balance of such power. They themselves are not interested in opposing of even agitating against imperialism. Their entry into politics is merely to ensure that their interests do not suffer on account of any power being 'transferred to Indian hands. No one with the least political understanding or experience can talk of unity with the landlords. Here is the second breach in national unity.
10.Let us take the industrialists next . Nationalism to them means complete freedom to exploit the country’s resources (of men and materials) and to build up their fortunes, or, as it is euphemistically put, to develop the country. To do this they require a great deal of control at once; but since that is too risky to secure, they would be satisfied with gradual concessions of such control, i.e. with ‘reforms’.
11. The Indian industrial class has grown up under the aegis of imperialism and is completely at its mercy economically and politically. It has no other foreign support, as the Irist bourgeoisie had in the USA. In itself its growth has not resulted in such benefits to the people, nor has it so made its influence felt on the economic or cultural life of the Country, as to arouse and gather enthusiasm and support for itself. The result is the inability of this class to oppose imperialism. At best it can put pressure on it. But even this pressure it is unable to exert as a class. They only manner in which it can bring pressure to be exerted on imperialism is by inducing and surreptitiously helping other classes, with lesser stakes, to do so, This help too, it will withdraw if the objective of the pressure is any other then what is demanded by the interests of their class.
12. Thus, we see, first, that the Indian industrialists are unable themselves to oppose. imperialism; secondly, that they would be satisfied with facilities for economic development, and thirdly, they would support nationalism only when it aims at placing them in the seat of power. Here is the third breach in national unity.
13. Let us take the peasants now. India is a land of peasants. Indian nationalism has any meaning, it should mean the freedom of the peasants. What is that freedom? Above all, it is freedom from exploitation irrespective of whether that exploitation is carried on by a brown or a white skin. It is, further, the opportunity to shape the nation's economic and political policies in accordance with their own interests. In short, it is a peasant raj.
14.As for method of struggle, peasants have always know only one method – direst action. Such action, however, is as dangerous for the foreign oppressor as for the native. It is necessary therefore, that in the interest of the latter, the peasants do not become conscious of their economic and political destiny. In other word, “national” unity breaks up as soon as the peasantry become conscious. Here is another breach in unity.
15. Likewise with the workers. The workers' freedom means freedom from wage-slavery by social ownership of means of production. Like the peasants, the workers' weapon too is direct action. And they too must not become class conscious, so that national unity may be maintained. A class-conscious working class means the break-up of national unity. Here is a further breach.
16. The above analysis has shown that there is no such thing as national unity which the socialists are trying to destroy. Nationalism does not mean the same thing to all the classes within the nation-it is not to be simply expressed as the overthrow of the foreign incubus. Some classes in their very nature are for that incubus. Of those that are against, some are incapable of opposing it, and those that are in a position to do so, have fundamental interests directly opposed to those of the first.
17. The analysis shows, further, that the national unity... means in reality that the lower classes-the masses should fight imperialism not to secure their own freedom from exploitation but to enthrone the bourgeoisie and the landed magnates, who themselves do not participate in that fight; in the place of the imperial power. This unity can be maintained only at the cost of mass consciousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment