रणजीत देसाई यांच्या ‘श्रीमान योगी’ कादंबरीच्या प्रस्तावनेवरून अलीकडच्या काळात बरीच चर्चा झाली आहे आणि अजूनही कुठे कुठे होत आहे. याचे मुख्य कारण हेच  आहे की सध्या बाजारात असलेल्या आणि मेहता प्रकाशनाकडून प्रकाशित झालेल्या श्रीमान योगीच्या प्रतीला जी प्रस्तावना आहे तिचे स्वरूप पत्राचे आहे. पुस्तकांची प्रस्तावना अशा नसतात. दुसरे म्हणजे ही प्रस्तावना काही मुद्देसूद सांगते आहे असेही दिसत नावही. पण याचे खरे कारण हेच आहे की छापलेली प्रस्तावना ही खरे तर  प्रस्तावनाच  नाही. श्रीमान योगीच्या विषयावर श्री देसाई यांचे चिंतन चालू असताना त्यांची आणि कै. प्रा. नरहर कुरूंदकर यांची एकदा भेट झाली. या भेटीत श्रीमान योगीच्या विषयावर चर्चा झाली. त्या चर्चेला अनुलक्षून कुरूंदकरांनी एक पत्र देसाई यांना नांदेडहून पाठवले. ते पत्रच मेहता यांनी प्रस्तावना म्हणून छापले आहे. ही प्रस्तावना नाही. परंतु ‘श्रीमान योगी’ला कुरूंदकरांची प्रस्तावना आहे हे खरे आहे. फक्त ती प्रस्तावना श्रीमान योगीच्या पहिल्या आवृत्तीचे प्रकाशक कै. रा. ज. देशमुख यांच्यासाठी लिहिली होती. त्या प्रस्तावनेचे हक्क मेहतांना मिळाले नसावेत. पण श्रीमान योगीची कुरूंदकरांची प्रस्तावना ही अतिशय सुविख्यात प्रस्तावना आहे. त्यामुळे ती पूर्णपणे वगळून पुस्तकाची नवी आवृत्ती प्रकाशित करणे मेहतांना अडचणीचे वाटले असावे. त्यामुळे त्यांनी हा मधला मार्ग काढून कुरूंदकरांनी देसाईंना लिहिलेले पत्रच प्रस्तावना म्हणून छापले. मुळातल्या पहिल्या आवृत्तीला जी प्रस्तावना होती ती मी वाचलेली आहे आणि ती पुस्तकाचे लेखन पूर्ण झाल्यानंतर लिहिलेली होती. त्यामुळे त्यात कादंबरीचे काही मूल्यमापनही समाविष्ट होते. हे सगळे मी अनेक वेळा लिहिले असले तरी मूळची प्रस्तावना पुस्तकप्रेमींना कशी मिळणार हा प्रश्न मला सतावत होताच. परवाच सुदैवाने हा प्रश्न सुटला, म्हणून ही पोस्ट.

देशमुख आणि कंपनीने कुरूंदकरांनी लिहीलेल्या प्रस्तावना आता संकलित करून दोन भागात प्रकाशित केल्या आहेत. त्यातल्या पहिल्या भागाची (निवडक नरहर कुरूंदकर खंड : दोन ग्रंथवेध भाग :एक) सुरवातच ‘श्रीमान योगी’च्या प्रस्तावनेने होते. प्रयासाने आणि दीर्घ काळाने उपलब्ध झालेली ही प्रस्तावना सर्वांनी आवर्जून वाचावी अशी आहे. सध्याच्या श्रीमान योगीमधले कुरूंदकरांचे पत्र म्हणजे प्रस्तावना नव्हे हे पुन्हापुन्हा का जाणवते आणि सांगावेसे वाटते याचे उत्तर त्यात सापडेल अशी माझी खात्री आहे.

कुरूंदकरांच्या पत्रात शिवाजी या व्यक्तिमत्वाची, त्यातल्या ऐतिहासिक सत्याची, ते सत्य कुठे आणि कसे शोधायचे याची सखोल आणि विस्तृत चर्चा आहे. शिवाजीच्या व्यक्तित्वाचे विविध पैलू कुठे कुणी आणि कसे उलगडून दाखवले आहेत याचे संदर्भ त्यात आहेत. पण प्रस्तावनेत त्यापेक्षा काहीतरी वेगळे आहे. ते पत्र (सध्याच्या श्रीमान योगीची प्रस्तावना) आणि आता या पुस्तकात समाविष्ट असणारी मुळातली प्रस्तावना यांच्यात चार महत्वाचे फरक सहजपणे कळू शकतील इतके स्पष्ट आहेत. पहिला आणि सर्वात महत्वाचा फरक म्हणजे पत्र सर्वसाधारण स्वरूपाचे आहे. साधारणपणे ‘शिवाजीच्या व्यक्तिमत्वाचे आकलन’ असा त्याचा विषय म्हणता येईल. पण शिवाजी हे एक नाव सोडल्यास या पत्राला बाकी काही संदर्भ नाहीत. म्हणजे कुरूंदकरांच्या या पत्राला विषय आहे पण संदर्भचौकट नाही असे म्हणता येईल. या उलट पुस्तकातल्या प्रस्तावनेला ‘श्रीमान योगी ही कादंबरी’ अशी संदर्भचौकट आहे. ती संदर्भचौकट सोडून प्रस्तावना कुठे भरकटत नाही. जे काही म्हणायचे आहे ते ती कादंबरीच्या संदर्भातच म्हणते. ही चौकट पडण्याचे आणि कुरूंदकरांनी ती मान्य करण्याचे कारण हेच आहे की प्रस्तावना कादंबरीचे लेखन पूर्ण झाल्यावर कादंबरीचा प्रस्ताव मांडण्यासाठी म्हणून जन्माला आली आहे. याउलट पत्र कादंबरीलेखनाच्या बर्‍याच आधीचे असल्याने त्याला संदर्भाची कुठली चौकट नाही.

दुसरा महत्वाचा फरक म्हणजे एका कादंबरीचा संदर्भ या प्रस्तावनेला असल्यामुळे तिची सुरवात ‘ऐतिहासिक कादंबरी’ या वाङ्मयप्रकाराबद्दलच्या चर्चेने होते. या चर्चेमुळे आता प्रस्तावनेला संदर्भाचा आणखी एक अक्ष जोडला जातो. म्हणजे प्रस्तावनेला कथा आणि कथानायकाचे व्यक्तिमत्व हा एक आणि साहित्यप्रकाराचा एक असे संदर्भाचे दोन अक्ष संदर्भासाठी स्वीकारले जातात आणि त्या चौकटीत प्रस्तावना वावरते. मराठी साहित्यात ऐतिहासिक कादंबर्‍यांचा मुख्य प्रवाह, त्याची लक्षणे आणि त्या संदर्भात शिवाजीबद्दल देसाईंच्या आकलनाचे महत्व अशा गोष्टींची चर्चा प्रस्तावनेत येते ती त्यासाठी.

तिसरा मोठा फरक हाही प्रस्तावना कादंबरीलेखनानंतरची असल्यामुळे पडतो. प्रस्तावना लिहिताना कादंबरी समोर असल्यामुळे प्रस्तावनेत कादंबरीचे काही मूल्यमापनही येते. कुरूंदकरांनी हे मूल्यमापन मुख्यतः तीन कसोट्यांवर मांडले आहे. एक म्हणजे शिवाजी या व्यक्तीचे देसाईंना झालेले आकलन, दुसरे म्हणजे मराठी ऐतिहासिक कादंबरीच्या प्रांतात या कादंबरीने घातलेली भर आणि तिसरे म्हणजे या कादंबरीचे एक कलाकृती म्हणून व्यक्तिमत्व कसे दिसते. शिवाजीच्या मृत्युला ऐतिहासिक प्रथा आणि परंपरा बाजूला सारून रणजित देसाईंनी दिलेला न्याय आणि स्वामीसारख्या कादंबर्‍या आणि श्रीमान योगी यातला फरक ही या मूल्यमापनाची अप्रतिम उदाहरणे आहेत. शिवाजी-तुकाराम भेट आणि मनोहारी ही व्यक्तिरेखा याबद्दलची कुरूंदकरांची निरीक्षणे आणि मते यांची त्यात भर घातली तर या प्रस्तावनेचे महत्व स्पष्ट अधोरेखित होईल.

मला अतिशय मौल्यवान वाटणार्‍या कुरूंदकरांच्या प्रस्तावनांमध्ये श्रीमान योगीच्या या प्रस्तावनेचा समावेश आहे हे मी याआधीही अनेकदा सांगितले आहे. आता ही प्रस्तावना पुस्तकात आली या निमित्ताने तिच्याकडे पुस्तकप्रेमी मित्रांचे लक्ष वेधावे एवढाच सध्या हेतु आहे. 

Blood, bluffs and (some) bullshit

India is a unique country, at least on one count. It harbours more enemies and very less friends. Moreover, many times, enemies are seen in friendly disguise. But India is habituated to accept enemies dressed as enemies even. The enemies in this case, have many names viz. media, channels, infotainment and so on.

Al Jazeera can’t be called our friend, by any stretch of imagination. And as has to be expected, it has been engaged in twisting facts, stretching meanings of the normal words and even forcing ulterior agenda. A recent case is their reporting of Kashmir issue and the most unfortunate part of the episode is the association of our learned elites from Kashmir with Al Jazeera.

On 1^st April this year, (coincidentally the April Fool’s Day) one Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, made her appearance in Al Jazeera and cried on India’s attempts in ‘bringing the Israeli model to Kashmir’. The problem with these self-proclaimed voices of Kashmiris is that they, many times, don’t realise that they are exposing themselves, in an attempt to call others. This Anuradha Bhasin, in her article, has deplored the demise of Article 370 and Article 35A. She describes Article 370 as the one ‘…which gave the state its special status and excluded it from the application of various constitutional provisions’ while article 35A, she says, was one ‘… which limited certain residency rights to the local population and granted them certain protections’. She agrees that ‘with the abrogation of Article 370 and the removal of its status as a state, the region was fully integrated.’ But top to bottom, the whole article doesn’t have a single word on why the constitutional provisions that are applicable to every single citizen of India outside J&K, shouldn’t have been made applicable to J&K population. What’s so bad about the provisions after all? As a matter of rule, shouldn’t all citizens be equal? Why not, if not? What could be the justification for not allowing political reservations for STs in J&K? She has cried a lot that the change was brought in ‘…without fulfilling the constitutional requirement of participation of the state legislature,’ but doesn’t utter even a word on why the successive assemblies didn’t bring in these pragmatic changes for over 70 years, so as to deny any justification to the ruling elite to scrap the articles.

But the worse is to follow. Ms. Bhasin says, these ‘articles had guaranteed that the right to buy and own land or apply for government jobs was the sole prerogative of those who had inherited permanent residency by descent.’ What world is she in? A right ‘inherited by descent’? In 2020? What kind of a system is she longing for? And still, this is not complete account of everything that she stands for. J&K has been a full state for 70 years now. But at no point of time, they looked like trying to bring a better and modern system. After the changes were forced on them, she is so much worried on the removal of both the articles that put ‘a bar on business investments by outsiders or attempts by monopolistic companies to take control of J&K's lands and economy’. But for 7 decades, nobody was talking about putting brakes on any of the existing monopolies in the state. What prevented the state from creating a law that prevented any person – individual or legal – from holding land beyond the threshold decided by the state? The answer is simple. They were never interested in any better system of rules and laws. Even today they are not. All that they desire is protecting the system that offers everything by decent and allows inheritance even of the rights of non-existing population at the expense of the living folks.

Shall we ask her who are these outsiders who should be prevented from having the right to buy and own land or apply for government jobs? I may not agree, if she means somebody who was born and brought-up in Mumbai, Pune, Delhi, Lucknow, Bangalore, Hyderabad and so on. But at least I can understand. I can see the logic in the demand and argue on how could the best of both worlds can be married. In the present situation, that is not possible. Ms. Bhasin wants to prevent even those who were born and brought up in valley, but have no 100-year-old roots there. Even they are ‘outsiders’. Worst of all, even those who came in J&K during the partition or during the war of 1947-48 and who belong to some other part of the undivided J&K of the Maharaja regime are also outsiders. She deserves to listen to Barrister Hamid Bashani, a Kashmiri Muslim himself, who quipped, ‘Pakistan scrapped restrictions on settling in Gilgit-Baltistan during 1975 itself. So, a lot of ‘outsiders’, without any requirement of minimum stay, have already settled, bought lands and set-up their businesses in Kashmir. But nobody called it demographic change……. On the other hand, Indians are not doing any demographic change at all. Kashmiris decided of not doing a few menial jobs themselves and brought poor people from outside to get them done. It was understood ab initio that these people will be in Kashmir for generations, so that fresh search will not be required again. In spite of that, if you say that these people have no right on the jobs and property in Kashmir, that’s a very fascist way of thinking. It cannot be called demographic change’. Bashani is right. The Union Government has notified the rules for domicile certificates where the entitlement comes only with a minimum 15 years stay in J&K. If this is wrong, what’s right? Denying residency right to those who are in Kashmir for generations together, but allowing it for a fraction that may or may not have stayed in Kashmir even for three or four or five years out of last 70 years- is that what Ms. Bhasin thinks right? Looks like. Further down, she again calls everyone, who can get domiciled status in new rules, as outsiders. In the same article, she says, ‘The new domicile rule …… stirred up anxieties, particularly among the J&K youth, irrespective of their ethnic and communal identities or their political ideologies, as it meant they would be losing government jobs, they earlier had a monopoly over, to outsiders.’ So people who were brought in to do menial or ‘dirty’ jobs, should do those jobs for generations together. Never ever should they aspire to do anything better, because they do not inherit the right for ‘better’ jobs. What could be more horrific than this approach?

Al Jazeera, followed this with news items that kept harping upon the demographic shift theme, equating the new domicile rules with Israel’s efforts in Gaza strip. They have, however, overlooked completely that Israel’s invitation to come to Gaza strip has no minimum residency tag. Barrister Bashani has stated vary categorically in his video that he would have called it an attempt of changing the demography, had India extended an invitation to any and every Indian to come and settle in Kashmir. But that’s not the case. So, nobody is trying to force a demographic change in the valley. What’s actually happening, is correction of a deliberate mischief, created for suppressing the actual demography of Kashmir. What’s on in J&K is the restoration of justice, by overturning deliberate injustice.

Never in the whole 4500+ words-article, Ms. Bhasin talks of the ‘insiders’ who were driven out of the state at gunpoint. Al Jazeera also is completely silent on the rights of these Pandits that were forcibly driven out. Looks like Al Jazeera and its columns have only one lens to their glasses and therefore can see only one set of population of Kashmir- the set that is in minority, but had been enjoying majority artificially, by misusing rules and laws. How should the other elements of the population exercise their ‘inherited right’ on the government jobs? No replies! Ma’am, whatever you say and however hard you try to fool everybody around, your ‘right’ is not right. If that is your attitude and you think only inheritance is right, well, the only reply could be- thank God, we are not on the right side.