Amongst the many things that rulers, especially new ones (or upstarts), want, two things always figure. One is the need to recast history in such a way that their rule seems not just a logical but also the inevitable outcome of everything that happened earlier. The other is to make sure that whatever they are doing is recorded in a manner that will make future generations look kindly upon them. No ruler is exempt from these longings. That being so, Stalin and his successors were not really exceptional. Their methods might have been crude and even brutal. But overall, they were only observing the norm.
This book, however, is exceptional, both in its erudition and its scholarship, not to mention style. I am no expert either on the writing of history or the Soviet Union. But having read this book, I think I can make a fair claim to being both. If only more Indians would write books like this one. The research is meticulous and, even more importantly, the footnotes are fascinating, as indeed they should be.
For example, about the infamous Katyn Forest massacre, where in 1941 Soviet troops executed 925 Polish officers before running off as the Germans advanced. Then when they returned in 1944, they dug up the bodies and placed German newspapers and diaries, etc in the hands of the skeletons to show that it was the Germans and not they who had killed the wretched Poles.
In another we learn of the letters that were found in Stalin’s desk when it was being cleared after his death in 1953. He had hidden them under newspapers. One of them was from Lenin asking him to say sorry to his (Lenin’s) wife, with whom Stalin had been very rude. Lenin had threatened that if Stalin didn’t apologise, it would be the end of all relations between them. Another was from Bukharin from jail, pleading, “Koba, why do you need my death?” But the best one was Tito, who wrote that they had caught a succession of assassins who said Stalin had sent them. Tito wrote that he could also send one, “after which there would not be a need for another one”.
There are many more like this.
Another thing one learns from this book is how argumentative the Russians were until Stalinism gagged them. The debates used to be rich and varied and often on the most arcane of points. Indeed, debates amongst the Communists were even more arcane, if that were possible. For every view, there was a counter-view, and uncomfortable facts — such as the beastliness of human nature — were mostly not taken into account.
One of the most interesting sections, not least because the CPM and the BJP are both followers of this tradition, is entitled ‘History in Russian Schools’. There we find that as a result of various actions taken by successive governments after 1991, most children today think of the years between 1917 and 1991 as a grey period about which very little is known. Vladimir Putin, as befits a man who owes a lot to the old Soviet regime, is trying to remedy that. Eventually, one must suppose, it will not be only the gorier but also more lurid details of the Soviet era will be taught in schools.
Lack of space prevents me from going on and on about this book. Suffice it to say that it is a fascinating read, not just for the facts one learns but also for illuminating how the State can suborn historians and history. It should be read by both experts and laypersons.
WRITING HISTORY IN THE SOVIET UNION
MAKING THE PAST WORK
Arup Banerji
Social Science Press
Pp 322; Rs 695
