Lenin, Stalin and Hitler:

The age of social

catastrophe

By Robert Gellately

Publisher: Knopf, 2007

Price: £25

Pages: 696

The twentieth century was one of the most horrible and catastrophic periods in the written history of mankind. Horror and terror in all their manifestations engulfed the whole planet causing deaths and other war-related casualties of unprecedented proportions. Early in the twentieth century man found himself engaged in, what the subsequent generations would call, the First World War. In 1919, the First World War ended after having seen eight million dead, seven million permanently disabled and another fifteen million seriously wounded. But the way it ended, it inevitably sowed the seeds of yet another world war. The Second World War, which started in 1939, did not end abruptly on May 8, 1945. Just like its previous version, it also witnessed deaths and casualties of millions. The terror caused by the Second World War was of such an enormous magnitude that its repercussions are being felt even today.

Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were the major players whose whims and fancies, insatiable lust for world domination and utopian or messianic ambitions caused the massacre of millions of men and women. A detailed account of the elaborate social catastrophe which the world witnessed in the first half of the twentieth century can be found in Robert Gellately's book Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The age of social catastrophe. Unlike the previous studies conducted on these subjects, Professor Gellately departs from the standard approach which places Stalin and Hitler at the centre of the whole cataclysmic drama and conveniently excludes Lenin from it. Professor Gellately's study puts Lenin right at the beginning of the long series of events which led up to the Second World War.

The Bolsheviks took the reins of Russia from the provisional government, which hardly survived for few months, and had come to power after the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. To say that the Bolsheviks' coup was bloodless would not be an exaggeration. But Lenin was obsessed with the idea of bringing communism to Russia and thought of terror as an indispensable phenomenon in any revolution. He, thus, fused nightmarish revolutionary terrorism with Karl Marx's idea of 'dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin was born Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov on April 10, 1870 and was an early convert to the most intransigent brand of Marxism. His revolutionary ambitions were of such enormous measure that not allowing merciless killings in the name of revolution meant hypocrisy to him. Soon after coming into power he seized the freedom of the press and was convinced that any political party other than the Bolsheviks represented merely the bourgeoisie.

According to Gellately, Lenin did not understand the teachings of Karl Marx the way Marx would have wished him to. He remarks that Russia was not ready for a revolution in Marxian terms as there was no 'capitalism' there. Russia of the early twentieth century was an agricultural country and therefore, not ripe for conducting the experiment of communism. Only in a thoroughly industrialised society, Marx says where the proletariat has been suppressed and exploited for a considerable period of time that the seeds of communism could be sown. As Russia was not in such a state, Lenin had to inevitably resort to New Economic Policy (NEP) to gain economic stability, apart from the terror inflicted on the masses by the Red secret agency, Cheka. Bolsheviks openly stated that they could not adhere to the 'morality' and the 'humanity' of the bourgeoisie.

Lenin died on January 21, 1924 at the age 53. During his last days, Lenin feared a split around Stalin and Trotsky, the two leading figures of the communist party. But soon after his death, Stalin who was the general secretary of the Party, managed to outsmart not only Trotsky but all other such candidates as well, all in the name of Leninism.

Joseph Vissarionovich Dzunghashvili (Stalin) was born on Dec 21, 1879, according to his official biography, but historians agree that he was born on Dec 6, 1878. Stalin was Lenin's most trusted lieutenant for his uncompromised commitment and loyalty to the Red cause. After coming into power, Stalin greatly industrialized the country and transformed Russia from a peasant society to an industrial one.

Following the footsteps of Lenin, Stalin continued with terror to obtain grain from the 'rich' peasants (kulaks). These kulaks were jailed and afterwards sent to forced labour and concentration camps where hundreds of thousands were worked to death. Apart from the kulaks and the bourgeoisie, members of clergy were also killed mercilessly. The Reds opposed religion because it encouraged people to adjust to the world as it was, and not struggle against it.

Just around the time when Stalin was trying to cement communism in Russia and was even thinking of 'exporting' it to other countries to save their proletariat from the oppression of bourgeoisie, Adolf Hitler was struggling to make a political breakthrough. Born of humble origins on April 20, 1889, Hitler served as a corporal in the German Army during the First World War, which left him greatly disillusioned. After the war he joined the German Workers' Party and quickly rose to become its leader on July 21, 1929 with dictatorial powers. Thereafter, he renamed the party as National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Hitler attempted to seize power but his putsch failed and he was imprisoned. But the court treated him like a celebrity for being a vocal nationalist and an anti-Marxist. Though opposed to democratic form of government, Hitler nonetheless contested elections and came to power on Jan 30, 1933 after winning the support of German masses. Soon after his appointment as Chancellor, which was warmly welcomed by the German armed forces, he made his aims clear to the whole world: to exterminate Marxism and to remove democracy. To Hitler in particular and German masses in general Marxism meant Bolshevism which they blended with anti-Semitism. Hitler thought the curse of 'Jewish Bolshevism' would engulf the whole world if not stopped right then. He was a German chauvinist of the highest order and wanted a 'pure' state of 'Aryans' along the lines of the ancient Sparta. In order to have a 'pure' race Hitler's regime took to eugenics and started eliminating beggars, tramps, pimps, prostitutes, asocial, chronically ill and non-Germans.

On September 1, 1939 Hitler invaded Poland after having conquered Czechoslovakia. To keep his back safe, while he invaded Poland and embarked upon annihilation of Jews, Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin. Within a short span of time Hitler conquered much of Europe and then turned to Russia to eliminate Jewish Bolshevism. Though Stalin was fore-warned about German Army's preparations to invade Russia, he dismissed those reports as 'provocative.' Thus German army exploited the element of surprise and came marching to Stalingrad. However, by then, Hitler's army had been thoroughly exhausted and their supplies cut off by the harsh Russian winter and the Red Army.

On the night of Nov 7-8, 1942 America and the allies surprised Hitler by beating his troops in Africa. Soon after, on Nov 19, Soviets attacked Germans in Stalingrad and levelled the scores. Thus began the retreat of the German army which ended on the night of April 29, 1945 when Hitler after marrying his mistress Eva Braun, committed suicide.

Robert Gellatley, an acclaimed social historian and a professor at Florida State University, is a specialist in twentieth century Jewish politics and history. He has greatly exploited the newly opened Russian archives to complete the Soviet side of the story. The scholarship of the book under review can well be gauged by the fact that the bibliography is over seventy-odd pages. The book is written in an easy-to-read language and one rarely chances upon a word which merits consulting dictionary. But much of the book is repetitious to the point of being boring at times.

During the first half of the twentieth century the whole world suffered because of the consequences of anti-Semitism. Where did the roots of this anti-Semitism exist? This anti-Semitism was such a remarkable phenomenon that Hitler was able to convince the whole German nation to obliterate Jews. Even atheist communists in Russia were so concerned with the wave of anti-Semitism that they removed many of the top leaders of the Bolshevik party who had Jewish origins. Gellatley states eliminating Jews from Germany did not bother America, Canada and Australia (page 323). What had Jews done that an extremist like Hitler was able to exploit it in an unprecedented manner? Were they having more privileges and legal and civil rights than their other counterparts? Were they oppressors who exploited the masses unduly and harshly? Gellately quotes Hitler (page 197): "I am not for curtailing the rights of Jews in Germany, but I insist that we others who are not Jews shall not have less rights than they." What was the cause of this anti-Semitism? This is an extremely crucial question for a student of social history of the twentieth century but finds no place in Robert Gellatley's book of nearly700 pages.

Democracy and

Governance

in Pakistan

By Tahir Kamran

Publisher: South Asia

Partnership, 2009

Price: Rs 300

Pages: 216

Political and cultural problems do not emanate in a day. There is always a history to them. The emergence of Bangladesh was not just a conspiracy of India against Pakistan. Its roots can be traced in the formative years of Pakistan when Jinnah refused to accept the cultural identity of Bengalis by enforcing Urdu on them. Thus the founding father of Pakistan himself refused to acknowledge the Bengali cultural identity entrenched and embedded in their history and traditions. Bengalis would not have thought even in their wildest imagination that the creation of Pakistan would result in the annihilation of their cultural ethos.

That was not all; Bengalis were also politically alienated and subjugated through the creation of one unit. The objective of the one unit was to cut Bengalis to their size by increasing the vote bank of what was called West Pakistan. On the other hand, through one unit the multiple cultural identities deeply rooted in history were also denied. Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan and the Frontier Province have their own unique identities and histories. Lumping them together as a one single entity was a joke that did not serve any purpose.

There was an acute shortage of infrastructure, industry and human capital at the time of the creation of Pakistan. Urdu speaking immigrants and the Punjabi elite filled that vacuum. Recruitment of the Punjabis in the armed forces was not a new phenomenon. The British government had already preferred Punjabi soldiers. The same tradition was followed after the creation of Pakistan. The result: Bengalis were further alienated from the power structure of the state.

Tahir Kamran's book Democracy and Governance in Pakistan plainly demonstrates that the creation of Bangladesh was the result of erroneous policies pursued by the civil military bureaucratic oligarchy of Pakistan. Bengalis were continuously and consistently denied there political and cultural rights that finally resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan.

Kamran has tried to address the important question of why democratic institutions could not flourish in Pakistan while India, with almost similar historical experiences, managed to at length in his book.

Kamran writes Jinnah reposed no confidence in his colleagues. Immediately after the creation of Pakistan he opted for the office of Governor General. He trusted bureaucracy more than politicians. That set a wrong tradition at the outset.

After the death of Jinnah, first Liaquat Ali and then Ghulam Muhammed abused the powers of the Governor General. Planning committee, a club of bureaucrats, became more important than political parties and electoral politics.

Kamran also writes the area constituting Pakistan, was the recruiting ground of British army. Landowners of Punjab supplied human fodder for the world wars from this area. So there was already a nexus between the military and the landed elite before the creation of Pakistan. That nexus got strengthened after the creation of Pakistan. This implies that there was no conflict of interest between the landed elite and the military bureaucracy. However, initially the civil bureaucracy called the shots while the military acted as a junior partner, this continued till Ayub Khan's era.

Another paradox of the new country was the constituencies of the Muslim League leadership. Most of the stalwarts of the party were from UP or those parts of the subcontinent that became part of India. The result was that the leadership of the Muslim League was reluctant to go for the polls based on adult franchise.

Insecure leadership of the Muslim League, common interest of the landed elite and civil military bureaucracy in northern areas of united India, superiority complex of civil bureaucracy and centralisation of power from the very outset never allowed political institutions to gain roots. On top of that, Bengalis who had interest in democracy were marginalised.

Another interesting point raised by Tahir Kamran is concerning the linkages between religious parties and the creation of Pakistan. It is generally argued that religious parties were against the idea of Pakistan. Kamran dismisses this claim and informs us that not all but many of the Deobandis' important figures supported the idea of a new country. They, in fact, wanted a laboratory where they could practice Islam. Pakistan was an ideal situation for them. So it is misleading to say that religious parties had no role in the creation of Pakistan and it was only the secular politicians that made it happen.

Kamran contends that massive investment in infrastructure made in Punjab and Frontier Province by the British Raj in the form of rail tracks and canals reflected their vested interests. The infrastructure, such as canals, was built to support industrialisation back home. The objective was to provide raw material to the growing industrial sector in Britain. Further rail tracks were built to provide a secure supply line to the troops in case Russia attacked India. So rail tracks were laid down owing to insecurity created by the expansionist designs of Russian empire. Here I would like to slightly disagree with the author. Economic development is never a zero-sum game. Investment in infrastructure might reflect the vested interests of the coloniser, but it also helped in the provision of new jobs and economic opportunities to the locals.

Kamran maintains that bad governance was the result of continuous bureaucratic intervention -- first civil and then military -- in the body politics of Pakistan. Recent researches prove that effective and efficient bureaucracy played a major role in the speedy growth and development of Asian Tigers. Similarly, without underplaying the significance of democracy, we can safely say that India despite solid democratic institutions is a poorly governed country. Finally, failure of democracy and bad governance is not confined to Pakistan. This dilemma has been faced by almost all the developing world in the last six decades. We hope that Tahir Kamran would try to address this rather complex phenomenon rooted in the discourses of modernity and tradition in his next monograph.

Mustansar Hussain Tarar is one of the fortunate writers whose books are always eagerly awaited. He joined the best-selling author list of South Asia with the publication of his very first book Niklay teri talash mein, that narrated the story of his wanderings in more than a dozen European countries.

Published in the last days of the 1960s, the book was followed by Undlus mein Ajnabi. It too was a travelogue and attracted more readers than his first book. These two travelogues introduced Tarar to countless young Pakistanis who dreamt of leaving their dark and dirty streets to spend some years of their life in the West.

Tarar's third book, Pyar ka Pehla Shehar, was a novel. It has been reprinted 50 times and is probably the most read Urdu novel.

Best-selling authors usually bow to the dictates of the readers and market. They fear that any deviation from these dictates will damage their popularity and fame. Tarar, however, has often refused to be driven by popular demand. This is because he has a comprehensive conception of the world and has always attached importance to this through his writings.

Many of the ten novels that Tarar has written cannot be placed in the category of popular fiction by any stretch of imagination. They cannot be read to simply pass time. Bahao, Raakh, Qurbat-e-Murg mein Mohabbat, Qila Jangi and Daakiya aur Jolaha, for instance, are novels that could only be produced after thorough study, research and analysis. They are literary novels and demand serious attention.

Mustansar Hussain Tarar has so far published more than fifty books and almost all of them have run into multiple editions. His recent writings do not fail to show that he is rapidly veering towards religion.

He is often painted as a crusty and gruff writer who has no patience for his contemporaries. However the boot is on the other leg. He admires Qurratulain Hyder and talks highly of Intezar Husain. He has lot of admiration and respect for Abdullah Hussain and regards him a novelist of more than ordinary importance.

Mustansar Hussain Tarar turned 70 a fortnight ago. The event was celebrated at the Model Town Park in Lahore where he comes for a morning walk everyday and has a number of friends there. Many of them brought cakes and all enjoyed the morning party.

Dr. Muhammad Amin is a friend from the good old days. He is the first Pakistani who earned a doctorate in philosophy from a Japanese university. Dr. Amin who now heads the department of philosophy at Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, did not bring only a degree from Japan, but also brought Haiku, a verse form composed in three unrhymed lines which is quite popular in Japan.

He composed Haikus in Urdu and introduced this form to our literary circles during the 1980s.Haiku is now quite popular here and almost two dozens of its Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi language collections have seen light of the day.

Memoona Amin, the daughter of Dr. Amin, has now compiled a potpourri of her father's poems and articles written on subjects related to literature, history, philosophy and mysticism. The book is titled In Search of Wisdom and has been published by the Bookman of Multan. Two articles included in the book merit special attention. One is titled "Existentialism and Muslim thought" that carries many interesting insights regarding similarities between the two thought systems. The other is on the relationship between language and religion.

In Search of Wisdom opens with the English version of the author's haikus. They have been translated by Rajinder Singh Verma.I quote here three of them:

As I opened a book of philosophy

Brooding over the words of Sartre

I observed a butterfly

O, the flowers bloom in a million colours

And their scent spreads in a legion style

As long as we live, Life's myriad –hued

Yonder in the meadows of the hills

The settings sun declines

As a hoary civilisation sinks

Kiernan's contribution

Victor Gordon Kiernan, one of the best known British historians who taught at Lahore's Dyal Singh College and Aitchison College for some time before the Partition ,passed away in London at the age of 95. He belonged to a group of British Marxist historians that greatly influenced modern historiography.

Besides history, he was interested in poetry. His books on Shakespeare are no less important than his works on the history of the imperialist era. They include Eight Tragedies of Shakespeare and Shakespeare: Poet and Citizen.

Victor Kiernan is also known for his interest in modern Urdu poetry. He translated selected verses of Iqbal and Faiz and published them in a book form together with his preface.